paymentsforecosystemservicesinagreeneconomy · biodiversity, ecosystem, environmental, erosion, ......
TRANSCRIPT
ECE/TIM/SP/34
Forestry and Timber Section, Geneva, Switzerland
GENEVA TIMBER AND FOREST STUDY PAPER 34
THE VALUE OF FORESTSPayments for Ecosystem Services in a Green Economy
UNITED NATIONSGeneva, 2014
Note
The designations employed and the presentation of material in this publication do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the secretariat of the United Nations concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area, or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. Moreover, the views expressed do not necessarily represent the decision or the stated policy of the United Nations, nor does citing of trade names or commercial processes constitute endorsement.
Abstract
Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES) describes the situation where the user of an environmental service, such as water purification, pays the landowners who provide that service. For PES to exist, there must be a clearly defined user and supplier, as well as a number of other necessary conditions, which are defined in this document using a summary of current sources. Particular attention is paid to how these conditions currently obtain within the UNECE region. The range of forest environment services is explored through fourteen detailed case studies, which examine best practice in promoting PES. Political and public relations implications of PES are discussed at length, and recommendations include the need for clarity about where PES may be a useful tool in moving towards a green economy and where other methods may be more appropriate.
Keywords
Biodiversity, ecosystem, environmental, erosion, forest policy, forest services, green economy, habitat, leakage, monitoring, payment for ecosystem services, PES, private, protective functions, public, recreation, subsidies, tenure, timber, tourism
ECE/TIM/SP/34
UNITED NATIONS PUBLICATION
ISSN 1020 2269ISBN 978-92-1-117071-9
e-ISBN 978-92-1-056451-9
iii
PREFACEWhat is the value of sitting under a forest tree’s shade, and enjoying a cool drink of
water or lunch? What is the value of a vista of a pristine grove of conifers or a stand of hardwood trees in full autumn colour? And how do we place a value on wildlife habitat; protection from floods, landslides, avalanches; and perhaps most important of all, clean water, air and climate? Our forests provide many critical services to humanity. We have long valued the forest for things that have very tangible monetary worth, such as wood and wood products, but we have not been able to demonstrate and capture the values of its services that are difficult to measure or even priceless.
It is not that we don’t recognise these services from our forests. We have long understood the importance of the key ecosystem services that our forests provide, but we have been slow to realize that these things could be worth paying for; especially when the costs and responsibility for stewardship of the forest are not in the public sector. Payment for ecosystem services (PES) is a tool to enable a forest owner or owners to capture the financial benefits from the positive externalities derived from forest ecosystem services and encourage them to continue to provide these services to another party or society at large.
This publication is a joint effort of UNEP, UNECE and FAO (through the joint UNECE/FAO Forestry and Timber Sections in Geneva) and discusses the concept of PES, as well as the various approaches, applications and resulting benefits in the UNECE region. It also covers some negatives that could occur without good policy in place. It uses lessons learned to provide guidance on what is needed for the success of PES schemes and their possible future.
UNEP, UNECE and FAO express their appreciation to all those who have played a part in the production of this timely publication and hope that it will highlight the critical role that forests play in maintaining our environment and contributing to a green economy.
iviv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTSThis paper was drafted originally by the UNECE/FAO Forestry and Timber Section, in
cooperation with the Finnish Environment Institute (SYKE); the UNECE Water Convention; FAO; the United Nations University Institute for Water, Environment and Health (UNU-INWEH); UNEP and IUCN. The original authors were: Douglas Clark and Franziska Hirsch (UNECE/FAO Forestry and Timber Section); Petteri Vihervaara and Eeva Primmer (Finnish Environment Institute (SYKE); Arnaud Brizay, Eve Charles and David Ellul (UNECE/FAO Forestry and Timber Section). Paola Deda, Dominique Reeb and Matthew Fonseca (UNECE/FAO Forestry and Timber Section) reviewed the paper together with Ingunn Lindeman and Nicolas Bertrand of UNEP; Lucilla Spini of UNU-INWEH and GECHH; David Huberman of IUCN; Dr. Markus Lehmann of CBD and Sibylle Vermont, of the Swiss Federal Office for the Environment BAFU. Jenny Heap, consultant, provided technical and copy editing services.
Douglas Clark revised the paper and undertook some updating, following which it was peer-reviewed by Pat Snowdon of the Forestry Commission (UK); Gregory Valatin of Forest Research (UK) and D. Evan Mercer of the USDA – Forest Service’s North Carolina Forest Research Station. Ivonne Higuero (UNEP) reviewed and provided guidance for the final version.
v
TABLE OF CONTENTS1. Ecosystem Services .............................................................................................................. 3
1. General ecosystem services ................................................................................... 3
1.2 Categories of Forest Ecosystem Services .......................................................... 4
1.3 Commitments towards forest-related PES schemes in theUNECE Region ............................................................................................................. 6
1.4 Green economy, the economics of ecosystems and their services ......... 8
2. Valuation of Ecosystem Services .................................................................................... 11
3. PES schemes in the UNECE region ................................................................................. 13
3.1 Public schemes ........................................................................................................... 14
3.2 Private schemes ......................................................................................................... 16
3.3 Public-private schemes ........................................................................................... 18
3.4 Trading schemes and conservation banking/offsets ................................... 19
3.5 PES schemes at the regional level ....................................................................... 24
4. Ecosystem services at the policy level: enabling conditions ................................ 27
4.1 Legislative and institutional framework ............................................................ 27
4.2 Forest tenure rights .................................................................................................. 29
4.3 Motivation and responsibilities of landowners .............................................. 30
4.4 Stakeholders and negotiations ............................................................................ 31
4.5 Monitoring, enforcement and compliance ...................................................... 32
4.6 Permanence and avoiding negative impacts .................................................. 34
5. What role can PES play in moving towards a green economy? .......................... 37
5.1 Expanding PES schemes: towards a green economy ................................... 37
5.2 PES as a complement to regulation and other measures ........................... 38
5.3 The Politics of PES ...................................................................................................... 39
6. Future directions and recommendations.................................................................... 43
6.1 Recommendations .................................................................................................... 44
7. References .............................................................................................................................. 45
Background references ...................................................................................................... 49
Annex 1: Overview of valuation methods ............................................................................... 51
Annex 2: PES schemes in UNECE countries. Overview of survey results. ..................... 56
Annex 3: Excerpt from draft Action Plan on “Forests and a Green Economy” on “Valuation of and Payments for Forest-related Ecosystem Services” ......... 75
Introduction 1
INTRODUCTIONThere are a number of definitions for the term ‘Payment for Ecosystem services’ (PES),
but in general it refers to situations where a specific, usually local, agreement is made for users of an ecosystem service to pay the providers of that service. It is distinct from environmental payments such as taxes, subsidies, grants and penalties, because the payment is agreed in advance between the user and provider, and the monies paid go to the provider, not into a general public purse.
So, for example, a firm needing pure drinking water, such as the Coca-Cola® bottling plant at the Tagua Reservoir, Portugal, agrees to pay local forest owners to maintain their forests in good condition so the plant may continue to draw pure water from the reservoir. This successful example is the kind of ‘win/win’ solution which PES can give, whereby both parties benefit in a way which would not have been the case if the PES option had not been available (Bulgaho, Presentation to ThinkForest Conference, 2012).
PES is generally based on a “user pays” rather than a “polluter pays” principle. Broadly speaking:
User Pays: Under this arrangement, the beneficiary of an environmental service provides payment, whether this is directly for an environmental service such as water purification, maintaining biodiversity, or storage of carbon.
Polluter Pays: In this situation, the parties responsible for damaging the environment are taxed or fined for doing so.
With PES, the fact that the money goes directly to the provider helps ensure that the service will continue to be supplied. This payment can be used to strengthen that particular ecosystem against pressures that may affect it, including climate change. As a voluntary agreement, rather than a tax or fine, it is hoped that there is more willingness to comply from the paying party (though at present no evidence is available to substantiate this) leading to lower transaction costs.
At the time of writing, the majority of PES schemes are unique, often innovative and do not fit easily into subsidy/tax programmes such as the EU Common Agricultural Policy (EU CAP). PES projects are particularly effective tools for rural development, especially where they succeed in bringing together public and private partners. Financing through a PES scheme secures long-term commitments to provide ecosystem services, which may otherwise be hard to achieve, especially in an economic recession. In some situations, PES schemes may be used as an instrument for poverty alleviation, if they provide employment and income for impoverished populations. The local nature of agreements may also be an effective tool for raising awareness about environmental concerns among a local community, although, as mentioned in section 5, partnership agreements of this kind are a change from a more traditional environmental message
The Value of Forests2
in which natural biomes are left untouched, so this awareness-raising will have to be carefully managed.
PES has come to prominence in the past decade as a possible solution to environmental problems. As a relatively new cooperative tool for environmental protection, it is important that it is used carefully, as early failures could bias the public against a useful solution. The following sections examine what is meant by ecosystem services; how they can be valued; what kind of PES agreements have been used so far; the conditions necessary for their success, and possible future directions for PES.
Fotalia, 2014
Ecosystem Services 3
1. ECOSYSTEM SERVICESBefore discussing how they can be paid for and what types of schemes are available,
it is important first to define ecosystem services and the context in which they are found. This section defines what ecosystems are, their different categories, and how these relate to forest ecosystems. It goes on to examine the commitments that have been made towards forest-related PES schemes in Europe.
1. General ecosystem services
The Convention on Biological Diversity (1992) defines an ecosystem as “a complex of living organisms and the abiotic environment with which they interact in a specified location.” In other words it is a local network of interacting plants and animals, and the landscape in which they live. An ecosystem service therefore, is a direct, measurable benefit from an ecosystem, for example, prevention of soil erosion by forests.
The concept of local agreements to pay for such services was clarified by Wunder (2005) who defined basic principles of PES projects:
Participation in PES schemes must be free and voluntary.
The compensated ecosystem service, or land-use, likely to provide the service is well defined.
At least one provider is involved.
At least one buyer exists.
The ecosystem service provider guarantees the availability and conservation of the particular ecosystem service. This proviso is called conditionality: the buyer needs to know they will continue to get what they have paid for.
The UNECE defines PES as “a contractual transaction between a buyer and a seller for an ecosystem service, or a land use/management practice likely to secure that service.” (UNECE, 2007). PES therefore covers a variety of arrangements through which the beneficiaries of ecosystem services pay the providers of those services. (Gutman, 2006). It is a range of financing arrangements for the conservation and sustainable use of natural ecosystems, such as forests, to ensure that the cost to the environment is paid for. It is not, therefore, one model to be universally applied, but rather a series of schemes which can be considered for application to particular circumstances, whether or not they exactly conform to the CBD or UNECE definition.
Recent increased promotion of PES has been due, in part, to new research by the UN-sponsored Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (hereafter MA) (Vihervaara et al., 2010). This report assessed the state of the world’s ecosystems and examined 24 essential ecosystem services in the context of “benefits people obtain from ecosystems.” It found
The Value of Forests4
that over the past 50 years, only four of these services have shown improvement whereas fifteen have shown serious decline, with the remainder under stress in some parts of the world. Practical measures such as PES, that may reverse this tendency, are therefore of great interest to the UNECE.
1.2 Categories of Forest Ecosystem Services
The MA classifies ecosystem services into four types, which apply to forest ecosystems as follows:
Provisioning: Useful physical products of the forest such as food, wood, fibre and fuel.
Regulating: These are the ‘preventative’ benefits of forests: their role in erosion control, flood prevention, climate regulation, carbon sequestration and water purification. As will be shown, this last has been one of the most common areas for PES schemes, partly because benefactors of water purification services are often easier to identify.
Cultural: Forests are sources of aesthetic and spiritual regeneration as well as providing recreation and education, which supplies services for the tourism industry.
Supporting: This describes the role of ecosystems as a ‘nursery’ for other environmental benefits, such as nutrition cycling and soil formation. Biodiversity services such as species and habitat conservation fall into this category.
The relationships between these different ecosystem services, and their contribution to human well-being, are set out in the diagram below:
Ecosystem Services 5
Figure 1: Linkages between Ecosystem Services and Human Well-being.
CONSTITUENTS OF WELL-BEINGCONSTITUENTS OF WELL-BEING
Freedom
of choice
and action
OPPORTUNITYTO BE ABLE TOACHIEVE WHATAN INDIVIDUALVALUES DOING
AND BEING
Security■ PERSONAL SAFETY■ SECURE RESOURCE
ACCESS■ SECURITY FROM
DISASTERS
Basic material
for good life■ ADEQUATE LIVELIHOODS■ SUFFICIENT NUTRITIOUS
FOOD■ SHELTER■ ACCES TO GOODS
Health■ STRENGTH■ FEELING WELL■ ACCESS TO CLEAN AIR
AND WATER
Good social relations■ SOCIAL COHESION■ MUTUAL RESPECT■ ABILITY TO HELP
OTHERS
Source: Millennium Ecosystem Assessment
ECOSYSTEM SERVICESECOSYSTEM SERVICES
Supporting
■ NUTRIENTCYCLING
■ SOILFORMATION
■ PRIMARYPRODUCTION
■ ...
Provisioning
■ FOOD■ FRESH WATER■ WOOD AND FIBER■ FUEL■ ...
Regulation
■ CLIMATE REGULATION■ FLOOD REGULATION■ DISEASE REGULATION■ WATER PURIFICATION■ ...
Cultural
■ AESTHETIC■ SPIRITUAL■ EDUCATIONAL■ RECREATIONAL■ ...
LIFE ON EARTH - BIODIVERSITY
Source: Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Ecosystems and Human Well-being. A synthesis. p.vi
Forests fit the Wunder’s condition of being well-defined areas, and also provide all four ecosystem services:
Provisioning: Models for extraction of provisions from forests have varied widely across the world, from complete deforestation, to commercial schemes which follow a model similar to PES where the goods extracted are paid for directly whilst still contributing to forest well-being. For example, sustainable forest management has been practiced for many decades in Europe and has been shown to lead to healthier forests.
Regulating: Whilst there seems to be a high awareness of the key role of forests in carbon sequestration and purification of water (World Bank/WWF, 2003), their role in climate regulation, flood control, air purification and land stabilization, especially in mountainous areas, (FAO Forest Resources Assessment (FRA), 2005) are ecosystem services which are rarely paid for by the industries and communities which benefit from them.
Cultural: Forests are treasured natural assets for society in general, but in particular are vital to the cultural activities of indigenous societies. Furthermore, modern cultural trends such as ecotourism can also be seen as a cultural service (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005, p.7), as these generate income for those involved in their promotion. It is not just ecotourism that benefits, however; most non-urban tourist industries would not exist were it not for the natural beauty (rivers, woodlands) that is part of the service they sell.
The Value of Forests6
Supporting: Forests are extraordinarily abundant in life; they provide biodiversity protection, acting as habitats for over half the world’s known terrestrial plant and animal species (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005 p.587). Given that this is half of the genetic and biological wealth of the planet, this may also be an area for future development of PES.
Such is the interest in the potential profitability of PES that stakeholders in forest management and services have formed consortia to collect data and develop models. The recent Newforex conference in Copenhagen, for example, ran workshops considering new methods of cost and valuation of PES, as well as its benefits and pitfalls (Newforex 2012, Copenhagen).
PES schemes may help to maintain or enhance forest ecosystem services where markets and incentive mechanisms are lacking. These schemes are most commonly linked to carbon, water, or biodiversity.
For example, PES can be used to:
Enhance biodiversity and to conserve healthy vital forests and other wooded land.
Strengthen the provision of non-wood forest products.
Improve water quality.
Mitigate climate change by sequestering and storing carbon.
Mitigate flood risk.
PES can be a tool to help maintain the multi-functional role of forests. Forests may be at risk from increased demand for renewable energy, environmental damage and the effects of climate change. Forest ecosystem services and resilience become more crucial, and PES is an important method by which direct payments can be made to maintain these services.
1.3 Commitments towards forest-related PES schemes in the UNECE Region
Within Europe, protecting forests has been rising on the political agenda. The government ministers at the Forest Europe Oslo Conference 2011 called for a legally binding agreement to ensure continuity of all environmental, economic and social forest functions. This built on earlier work, beginning with the Fourth Ministerial Conference on the Protection of Forests in Europe, held in Vienna in May, 2003, which recognized the essential benefits that forests provide. The signatory countries committed to promote incentives that have positive impacts on sustainable forestry, and also to the removal of incentives that have negative impacts. At the Fifth Ministerial Conference, held in Warsaw in 2007, signatory countries and the European Community recognized the vital role that sustainable management of forests plays in protecting water quality, and committed
Ecosystem Services 7
themselves to implement tools for securing water-related services provided by forests, such as payments for ecosystem services. They also agreed to:
Enhance the protective role of forests for water and soil as well as mitigating local water-related natural disasters.
Assess forestation programmes for their effects on quality and quantity of wa-ter resources, flood alleviation and soil maintenance.
Develop and improve policies for forest and water resource management con-tributing to the maintenance of sustainable ecosystems.
Assess the economic value of forest services related to quality and quantity of water resources and flood alleviation.
Incorporate the economic valuation of water-related forest services into poli-cies and strategies on forest and water.
Facilitate the implementation of measures, including payments for ecosystem services, to diversify the financial basis for sustainable forest management.
Maintain the protective function of forests.
At the international level, the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020, adopted at the 10th Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (COP-10) in Nagoya, Japan contained the following goals:
Goal A: Address the underlying causes of biodiversity loss by mainstreaming biodiversity across government and society.
Goal B: Reduce the direct pressures on biodiversity and promote sustainable use.
Goal C: Improve the status of biodiversity by safeguarding ecosystems, species and genetic diversity.
Furthermore the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) mapped out twenty global targets to be achieved by 2020. The following are particularly relevant:
The integration of biodiversity values into national/local development plans, poverty reduction strategies and planning processes, and incorporation into national accounting and reporting systems as appropriate (target 2).
The elimination, phase-out or reform of incentives, including subsidies, harmful to biodiversity, and the development and application of positive incentives for the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity (target 3).
Taking steps to achieve, or have implemented, plans for sustainable production and consumption and to have kept the impacts of the use of natural resources well within safe ecological limits (target 4).
The Value of Forests8
The sustainable management of areas under agriculture, aquaculture and for-estry, ensuring conservation of biodiversity (target 7).
Other initiatives are also relevant, such as those related to the implementation of the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD), on the economics of desertification, and on land degradation.
As can be seen from the above, commitment to, the concept of PES is strong in the UNECE region, and many of the conditions (outlined in Section 4) are already in place.
1.4 Green economy, the economics of ecosystems and their services
The Action Plan for the Forest Sector in a Green Economy, developed under the auspices of the ECE Committee on Forests and the Forest Industry and the FAO European Forestry Commission, refers to the need to protect the welfare of all forest stakeholders, with particular reference to compensating suppliers, wherever possible. Payment for Ecosystem services is a possible mechanism for this, and different approaches to the compensation process are addressed.
A number of different economic valuation approaches have been developed to determine the value of ecosystem services and biodiversity. The study on “The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity” hosted by UNEP and financed by the European Commission and other country donors, was launched at the 10th Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) in Nagoya, Japan in 2010 and compares different valuation approaches (TEEB, 2010). It also estimates that the global value of ecosystem services may run to several trillions of dollars annually. TEEB presents recommendations to policy makers and the business community at national, international, regional and local levels on how to take proper account of the value of ecosystem services and biodiversity in decision making.
Labelling, certification, and payments for ecosystem services can complement regulation, by encouraging consumers of ecosystem services to recognize and pay for their value. PES should change the economics of ecosystem management to support biodiversity-friendly practices that benefit society as a whole (TEEB).
To be in line with the Action Plan, payments for ecosystem services must encourage resource owners to adopt management practices that maximize social benefits within existing regulations and market incentives. PES may offer an opportunity, therefore, to increase the profitability of conservation, with benefits for both the private landowner and for society. In the absence of PES, landowners might not choose to conserve their land or to maintain a specific ecosystem service unless other incentives, such as tax incentives, or other instruments such as regulation, were in place (TEEB).
Valuation of Ecosystem Services 11
2. VALUATION OF ECOSYSTEM SERVICESAgreeing a level of payments for ecosystem services is essential for any PES
scheme. A wide range of different methods are available for this, and there will always be differences of opinion between the ‘buyer’ and ‘seller’ of an environmental service as to which is the most appropriate. The monetary value of ecosystems depends on the potential payers as well as several other factors, including the long-term sustainability of the service.
With any type of scheme in which market-based instruments are being used for ecosystem services (cap-and-trade, subsidy, fines or PES), defining the ‘true’ value of ecosystem services is a major challenge. There is no accepted universal method but instead a range of approaches. Annex 1 presents a consolidated overview of these.
More specific information on different valuation methods can be found in the CBD Technical Series 28 “An exploration of tools and methodologies for valuation of biodiversity and biodiversity resources and functions” (CBD, 2007), and the TEEB 2010 report “Ecological and Economic Foundations.” This also includes an overview of forest services and the valuation methods most suitable for different ecosystem services (Table A2.1b Conceptual matrix based on forest ecosystem services, benefits/value types and valuation approaches).
A more recent document with much useful information on valuing forest services is that of the Advisory Group on Finance Collaborative Partnership on Forests of 2012. The minutes of the June 2012 ‘Kick-off Meeting’ of the Forest Europe Expert Group also contain useful approaches, especially from a European perspective.
Whilst all of the above are useful in enabling parties to bring bids to the table, a perfect method of valuation is not always necessary for establishing successful PES. Valuation can be used to discover how much a buyer would be willing to pay and to develop a payment mechanism – after all, the important point is that all parties agree on the valuation, not that it can be scientifically proven beyond all doubt. In the forestry sector, for example, payments have sometimes been based on opportunity cost linked to foregone timber sales, a method which can be effective even if ‘true’ value is more complex to ascertain. Ultimately, no matter what figures the different PES partners start with, they will have to agree some type of compromise, influenced by factors such as impact on other ecosystems and sustainability.
As a final point, traditionally, timber production is an environmental service paid for by conventional means, but could continue even where a PES might be considered beneficial to maintain another ecosystem service provided by the forest. If biodiversity is a key priority, it may not necessarily be in conflict with timber production: thinning forest stands can be beneficial as it introduces more light and could help to promote long term stability of the standing trees. Allowing an owner in a PES scheme to produce
The Value of Forests12
timber may well provide the funds for the type of management that will help to protect some of the other key ecosystem services that the forest provides as well as reduce the size of PES payments needed.
A direction for future work might be to clarify how valuation studies carried out by environmental economists are, or are not, used in future in designing PES. It may be that less academic approaches will be needed to help those setting up PES schemes.
source: UNECE/FAO
PES schemes in the UNECE region 13
3. PES SCHEMES IN THE UNECE REGION
A 2011 literature search focused on the UNECE region, North America, Europe and Central Asia, to identify PES schemes. The search found 78 PES schemes were in operation, with 13 under development (Annex 2). Of these 78 schemes, 37 were focused on forest/biodiversity, 28 were watershed-related, and 13 were water quality trading programmes. The PES schemes in operation or being developed were found from:
The “Web of Science” database (Web of Science, 2013).
Environmental ministries.
The internet, using various search terms.
A review of literature.
The PES case studies brought to the attention of the secretariat.
The number of PES schemes increases year by year. Many PES programmes are located in Latin America, but there are also numerous schemes in Europe and North America, particularly in forest/biodiversity programmes. It is unlikely that the literature review has identified all the PES schemes, which are in use in the UNECE region. The search does, however, show different types of schemes throughout the region, covering a range of ecosystem services, which may rely on funding from public, private, mixed public/private sources, or trading.
The search uncovered two main approaches to PES:
Paying to maintain or enhance the services that an ecosystem provides.
Paying to rescue those services at risk, or prevent a change of land-use with potential negative impacts.
These divided into four main types of financial arrangements:
Publicly-funded schemes at the local, national and sub-regional levels.
Private self-organized deals.
Mixed (public-private schemes).
Trading schemes.
The Value of Forests14
3.1 Public schemes
In these, a public body, such as a municipality, national or local government is the primary buyer of the ecosystem service, generally a land-use or management practice in the general interest whilst also benefiting local concerns. Public funds are administered and paid out to the service providers (UNECE, 2007, p. 33).
Prominent forest sector examples in Europe include the Southern Finland Forest Biodiversity Programme (METSO) and the KOMET Programme for forest conservation in Finland and Sweden, both of which increased the share of protected forest area (see Examples 1 and 2). These public schemes were instituted by the government to conserve biodiversity and change management practice.
Example 1: The Southern Finland Forest Biodiversity Programme (METSO)
The Southern Finland Forest Biodiversity Programme (METSO) was launched in 2002 to protect forest land in Southern Finland, where most forests are in commercial use by small-scale non-industrial private landowners. The pilot programme introduced new voluntary conservation measures, under which landowners could
– Contract their land for a fixed period.
– Establish a private protected area.
– Sell the land to the state.
This ‘nature values trading’ mostly led to 10-year contracts and became the flagship instrument of the METSO pilot. Implementation emphasized nature values, which the compensation incentivized protecting.
After the successful pilot, it was extended across the country in 2008 through the METSO II programme, excluding only the northernmost parts of the country, where conservation was already good. The criteria for eligible sites were defined in more detail, and administrators were trained in standardized interpretation of them. Compensation was based on lost timber income only (a good example of the ‘opportunity cost’ approach mentioned above) and nature values became simply eligibility criteria, not influencing the payments. In Finland, landowners have the right, and sometimes even responsibility, to produce timber and the compensation is for giving up a part of this (Primmer et al., 2010).
Example 2: KOMET Programme, Sweden
This voluntary scheme, initiated by the Swedish Government and introduced in spring 2010 was a partnership of three government bodies with a budget of 11 million SEK in 2011 for administrative costs and covering 9% of Sweden’s forest land. It aimed to raise owners’ awareness of the conservation value of biologically important forest, and encouraged them to enter nature conservation agreements or other forms of protection for them. Agreements may last for between 1 to 50 years, depending on the site’s significance. Owners receive fixed-rate payments to compensate for limitations placed on their management in the interests of nature conservation. For habitat protection sites and nature reserves, owners receive full compensation plus an additional 25%.
PES schemes in the UNECE region 15
Other countries have established voluntary forest conservation schemes to increase the protection of biodiversity and related ecosystem services. In Norway, the Ministry of Environment along with the largest private forest owners’ association, identified forests eligible for conservation contracts. In addition, individual forest owners could propose their own land. The government negotiated to purchase eligible forests to establish forest reserves, banning all extractive uses. As in the case of METSO, compensation was for the value of timber, which would otherwise have been sold, and uses a standard formula (Zanderson et al., 2009).
In public payment schemes a public body is responsible for implementation, so there is a need to show public demand for the service and the cost-effectiveness of the mechanism. An ad hoc working group on non-wood forest goods and services under the Standing Forestry Committee of the European Commission found that, “it may be possible to increase the number and value of such schemes through innovative approaches, ideally based on revealed preferences to more convincingly demonstrate the public value of forest goods and services” (Standing Forestry Committee, November, 2008).
Incentive payments also allow governments to support smaller-scale PES schemes. These could take the form of grants for footpath maintenance, as well as third-party transactions such as the ‘sale’ of tourist services (for example, guided walks through a forest) with a portion of the income channelled to the forest owner. In the Netherlands, for example, an entrance fee is paid to visit some natural sites. In Latvia, entrance fees are charged for the use of special trails or enclosed areas for game watching (Standing Forestry Committee, November, 2008).
As well as payments for conservation, governments can institute fiscal mechanisms such as dedicated taxation. In the United States, the Catskills watershed management was publicly funded through higher water fees which were earmarked to protect the quality of drinking water supplies to New York City.
In the water sector, public schemes usually target services to secure supply (quality and quantity), flood protection and erosion control, usually by the provision of financial incentives to encourage more sustainable land-use. The New York City’s Catskills programme is an example of a local-level public scheme (The Catskills/ Delaware Watershed Protection programme (New York) Stanton et al. 2010; FAO 2010 web pages) but public water schemes are often related to improving agricultural practices beyond legal requirements and normal practice. For example, the nitrate strategy of Switzerland encourages farmers to enhance the environment of their farmland (UNECE, 2007, pp. 38-40). Similar schemes also used to pay for the maintenance of forest areas and afforestation or reforestation to ensure high quality drinking water supply for municipalities, such as the canton of Basel (see Example 3).
The Value of Forests16
Public schemes tend to be more significant in terms of volume so it is particularly important that their permanence is assessed, ensuring that the ecosystem service continues to be maintained, especially in cases where there is a one-time payment to cancel debt or improve the land.
3.2 Private schemes
In private schemes, privately owned bodies (such as companies, farmers’ associations, cooperatives or private individuals) compensate a private landowner for the maintenance of an ecosystem service. The agreement of the Coca-Cola® bottling plant with local forest owners in Portugal is a good example. Payments were made for the owners to maintain their forests in good condition to keep the Tagua Reservoir pure. The bottling plant paid via a voluntarily-negotiated contract. Another example is Vittel (see Example 4 below), where the mineral water company compensates farmers for using sustainable agricultural practices compatible with maintaining water quality. The private funding ensures a steady income flow for maintaining the service.
Typically there is a management entity which administers the contract, collecting the funds from the buyers, disbursing them to the sellers and holding them accountable for the provision of the service (UNECE, 2007).
Privately funded schemes tend to be linked to water as good quality water has a commercial value which is relatively easy to calculate. This is not always so easily done with forest ecosystem services where the protection of soil quality or a key habitat for wildlife, for instance, does not easily translate into a cash value.
Privately funded water-related PES projects therefore abound. Two examples are the cases of Henniez SA., Switzerland (Example 5) and Bionade GmbH, Germany (Example 6). In the first, the forested land is owned by a private company. In the second, external landowners are part of the scheme, both public and private. These examples are included to showcase forest-related examples, which may be replicable to other situations where the maintenance of a sustainably-managed forest is crucial for water quality.
Example 3: Payments for drinking water from forested catchments Canton Basel-Stadt,
Switzerland
Forest covers 12% of the canton of Basel-Stadt. The broadleaf-dominated stands cover an area of 429 hectares, of which 90 hectares are the property of 330 private forest owners. Approximately half of the drinking water for the canton of Basel-Stadt is supplied from the Langen Erlen catchment area. In this area, water from the Rhine is purified in a natural and sustainable way by forest stands. Among other good practices, this also required changes in species composition, such as replacing hybrid poplars, which have damaged the soil, with willows and Prunus avium (wild cherry tree).
In addition, water consumers pay for the sustainable management of forests belonging to the city of Basel through an extra charge in their water bill.
(http://www.waldwissen.net/wald/boden/wsl_wald_wasser/index_DE)
PES schemes in the UNECE region 17
Example 4: Vittel PES Scheme, France
This is one of the most successful examples of a privately initiated PES system. Nestlé Waters, owner of the Vittel brand of bottled water, entered into long-term (30-year) contracts with the 26 largest farm operations in the watershed. Nestlé Waters agreed to abolish the farmers’ land-ownership debt, cover the cost of all new farm equipment and assist in modernization with up to 150,000 Euros per farm.
The farmers agreed to follow the management plans prescribed by Agrivair, the environmental consulting firm established by Vittel to oversee the programme. By 2004, after 12 years of operation, the programme succeeded in incorporating 92 percent of the basin’s hectares and reducing the baseline nitrogen load of the spring’s source waters. The value of direct payments to farmers was concentrated in the first seven years of operation and has decreased afterwards as the programme reached its goal of enrolling all farms in the target watershed service area. Vittel paid $230 per hectare/year for seven years to cover the reduced profitability resulting from the changed management practices. Threats to water quality have now shifted from the rural to the urban areas, and Agrivair is moving its focus to programmes targeting pollution from storm- and waste- water management.(Ecosystem Marketplace, 2010)
Example 5: Henniez SA, Switzerland
Henniez, a mineral water company in Switzerland, extracts water from a natural spring nestled in quiet, secluded woodland, comprising more than 70,000 trees. The forest is partly located in a natural park, the “Domaine d’Henniez”: 100 hectares with no intensive agriculture. The forest plays a regulating role for the quality and purity of the natural mineral water. Until the end of the 1970s, the area around the source was used as arable and pasture land but, in the early 1980s, Henniez bought the land, halting arable production to protect its mineral water from pollutants such as nitrate, chloride and pesticides. From 1984, the company planted 200 hectares of new forest in the surrounding area to form a protective belt around the remaining natural meadows in the source area. This has the positive effect of limiting the nitrate content of the mineral water.
(Waldwissen 2013), (Henniez, 2013)
The Value of Forests18
Example 6: The “Drinking water forest” (Trinkwasserwald® e.V.), and its cooperation
with BIONADE Corporation, Germany
Starting in 1995, the German NGO Trinkwasserwald®e.V. (Drinking Water Forest) brought together forest owners and privately owned companies to create range of environmental education initiatives. The main goal was the creation of “Drinking water forests” under the Trinkwasserwald®e.V.-slogan: “We plant drinking water”. This required the conversion of conifer plantations to deciduous broadleaved forest. The effect has been that, after10 to 12 years, on average there has been an increase in the annual volume of available water of the order of 800,000 litres per hectare. Trinkwasserwald® e.V. organizes the process of creating new drinking water forests together with public or private forest owners. Private contracts are signed between Trinkwasserwalde.V. and the public or private forest landowners for a period of more than 20 years.
In April 2008, Trinkwasserwald®e.V. (Drinking Water Forest Association) started a project with the BIONADE Corporation for sustainable regeneration of drinking water. BIONADE Corporation, a privately owned German company situated in Bavaria in a Biosphere Reserve, needs good quality water for “BIONADE”, an organically manufactured non-alcoholic refreshment drink. The partnership between BIONADE Corporation and the NGO Trinkwasserwald® e.V. has resulted in more than 63 hectares of “drinking water forests” throughout Germany. Through its financial support of Trinkwasserwald® e.V., BIONADE Corporation has sustainably generated 50 million litres of additional ground water and drinking water. This action has compensated for the total amount of drinking water used in the “BIONADE” product each year.
The BIONADE Corporation has covered most of the costs of converting the forest land from conifers to broadleaves, including the costs of ground preparation, nursery stock, planting and fencing, possible re-plantings, as well as on-going care and maintenance over several years. The NGO Trinkwasserwald® e.V. is actively acquiring further partners for similar projects across Germany.(www.trinkwasserwald.de Final report study on the Economic value of groundwater and biodiversity in European forests:
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/forests/pdf/grounwater_report.pdf )
3.3 Public-private schemes
In these, the seller is a private entity whilst the buyer (or one of the principal buyers) is also a private individual, but represented by a public body. The PES contract is usually administered by a third-party PES-management entity (UNECE, 2007, p.34), similar to many private schemes.
The Catskills project referenced above could be seen as a scheme of this kind, where the public body acts as a broker between the New York taxpayers and the forest owners, but a better example is the Copenhagen Energy PES scheme (Example 7). The environmental service of improved groundwater quality is assured by a private forest owner agreeing not to use pesticides, as well as by private farmers who sell their land so that it can be afforested. These private persons are compensated by other private persons, the customers of Copenhagen Energy who consume the supplied water, and contribute to Copenhagen Energy’s fund. Copenhagen Energy plays the role of an intermediary by collecting money from the clients then investing it to give incentives to private land owners to change forest management practices or to sell their agricultural land.
PES schemes in the UNECE region 19
Example 7: Copenhagen Energy PES scheme
During the last 20 years, Copenhagen Energy Corporation, which delivers drinking water to around one million consumers around Copenhagen, has seen a reduction in supply of about 14 million m³ of groundwater per year. One of the largest groundwater bodies used by Copenhagen Energy is the Vigersted Well Field from which also 5 million m³ per year are taken, equal to a year’s consumption by 100,000 Copenhageners. Copenhagen Energy has therefore needed to protect this groundwater body through afforestation measures and the designation of well-head protection zones with no pesticides. Two forest-groundwater PES schemes have been developed to have two main effects:
- A change from agriculture to forests through afforestation of mainly broadleaf species.
– Restrictions on the use of fertilizers or pesticides in existing forest areas, andin some cases also replacing conifer stands with broadleaf tree species, to increasegroundwater recharge.
To maintain quality of groundwater in the privately-owned forest adjacent to the Vigersted Well Field, Copenhagen Energy pays the private owner not to use pesticides on 95 hectares of the forest. In addition, Copenhagen Energy was able to buy 530 hectares of farm land on which broadleaf trees were then planted. Afforestation activities were implemented and managed by the state and local municipalities.
(Final report study on the Economic value of groundwater and biodiversity in European forests: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/forests/pdf/grounwater_report.pdf )
3.4 Trading schemes and conservation banking/offsets
These usually occur where compensation for the provision of an environmental service comes from funds generated in markets in which permits, quotas or other rights can be exchanged. Among these are “cap-and-trade” schemes, where governments set a cap for the delivery of a particular service and suppliers can either accept the capping level, or trade permits so that others deliver the obligations on their behalf. This includes emissions trading through voluntary and compliance market credits for Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD) and water and pollution trading schemes. For example, environmental pollution quotas for nitrate, phosphorus and/or salt discharges can be traded by low polluters to high polluters for whom the buying of permits is cheaper than installing anti-pollution technology. Despite initial difficulties, projects like the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) where carbon credits can be generated through afforestation and sold in existing markets indicate a possible way forward on this.
The Value of Forests20
Example 8: Moldova Soil Conservation Project
The Moldova Soil Conservation Project, implemented as a Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) project is afforesting and reforesting 20,290 ha of degraded state-owned or communal agricultural lands throughout the country.
The project is expected to sequester about 1.22 million tonnes of CO2-equivalent (tCO2eq) by 2012 and about 2.51 million tCO2eq by 2017. The World Bank BioCarbon Fund will purchase emission reductions of 600,000 tCO2eq, while the Prototype Carbon Fund purchased 1.3 million tCO2eq under a separate agreement in 2002. In addition to the World Bank and Moldsilva (the Republic of Moldova’s Forestry Agency), 384 local councils represent the participating rural communities.
This will allow investment not previously possible due to financial and capacity constraints of the state forest agency and local councils. The investment will prevent soil erosion and restore degraded lands as well as promote biodiversity benefits from the restored habitats of endangered flora and fauna. The newly forested area will also produce fuel wood, timber and non-timber products to meet the needs of rural communities as well as additional social benefits such as local employment in tree cultivation. The active involvement of local councils, who own about half of the land under the project, is likely to ensure sustainable management of the afforested lands once transferred back to them.
The project has adopted a renewable 20-year crediting period, which is expected to be extended for a further two consecutive 20-year periods, over a total project period of 60 years. The implementation cost for the project during first 11 years (2002-2012), is estimated at $18.74 million. Moldsilva financed the implementation costs during this period andestablished all new plantations and maintained existing plantations on state-owned land. On communal land, the new forests were returned to the municipalities under long-term management contracts.
In October 2012 the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) announced the first carbon credits generated by the Moldova Soil Conservation Project. 851,911 temporary Certified Emission Reductions (tCER: a tCER is equal to one metric ton of carbon dioxide) were issued, the largest number of carbon credits from a reforestation project in the Accession Countries. The project was cited as “an excellent example of how co-operation between a numbers of forestry actors in a large-scale project can make a difference.” (Worldbank 2012)
The success of this project led to the development of a follow-up project – the Moldova Community Forest Development Project, which aims to reforest 8,157 ha of eroded and unproductive agricultural lands. The project, launched in November 2006, brings together Moldsilva and 265 communities with a total investment of $21.7 million over the period 2006-2035. (http://cdm.unfccc.int/Projects/DB/SGS-UKL1216031019.22/view)
(http://www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-release/2012/10/24/world-bank-helps-moldova-restore-degraded-lands-and-earn-carbon-credits)
PES schemes in the UNECE region 21
Example 9: Afforestation with Hazelnut Plantations in Western Georgia
AgriGeorgia, a subsidiary company fully owned by the Ferrero Group, has developed a project to sequester carbon on previously abandoned land in a poor rural region near the Black Sea coast. The plan is to halt land degradation by creating permanent forest cover, whilst providing local communities with sustainable and long-term income opportunities.
The Samegrelo region was a primary supplier of fruit and nuts in Soviet times until the 1990s when the region was left with a serious lack of capacity, including deteriorating infrastructure and uncertain land tenure issues. Land abandonment and degradation followed, aggravated over the last twenty years by slash and burn clearing for grazing and small-scale crop cultivation, deforestation of wind-breaks and illegal waste dumping leading to pollution. Investment in the region is also currently hampered by several risk factors, including those of political, social and armed conflict.
Established in 2007, the project rehabilitates local soil, land and water resources, restoring land production while generating necessary financing from the carbon credits. Afforestation with hazelnut plantations represents a replicable model for the Samegrelo region, offering significant environmental and economic opportunities, including higher employment, income, transfer of technology and know-how. (http://www.carbonfix.info/HAP/)
(http://www.climateprojects.info/GE-HAP/)
Fotalia, 2014
The Value of Forests22
Example 10: Albania Assisted Natural Regeneration Project
The Assisted Natural Regeneration project aims to afforest and reforest badly degraded land. Started in 2010, it will cover about 6,317 ha spread over 24 communes and five regions as part of the Natural Resource Development Project (NRDP), a World Bank loan project. This will establish or maintain sustainable, community-based natural resource management in hilly or mountainous lands, prone to erosion and resource degradation.
Assistance for natural regeneration fits within the afforestation/reforestation definition of the Marrakesh Accords. It also fits the ‘Additionality’ criterion, which refers to the need to show that achieved levels of services would have not occurred in the absence of PES. In this case natural regeneration was prevented by excessive grazing of goats, so the regeneration can be shown to be additionality as a result of the PES scheme. The activities included in the project are expected to sequester a total of 0.14 Mt CO2eq by 2012 and around 0.25 Mt CO2eq by 2017. The reforestation will help to halt the degradation of forests, soil erosion and loss of vegetative cover. It will also improve water quality and watershed capacity, and reduce siltation of watercourses and reservoirs. The forests will provide valuable habitats for a wide range of native flora and fauna, adding to natural biodiversity. #
The project provides an opportunity to bring critically needed sustainable revenue streams directly to poor rural communities in exchange of public goods and services, and can therefore have a significant impact on the populations’ livelihoods. Over 80,000 people will benefit from this project through.
The restored forest serves as a sustainable source of firewood, timber, fruit, fodder and other products for the local communities who currently have usufruct rights. This project supports a participatory approach within the community to reach a common agreement on the selection of sites and their protection from grazing, as well as the planning and implementation of interventions needed to accompany this change. As the source of funds in this case is a World Bank Loan, this example possibly stretches the definition of a PES slightly, but from the point of view of the rural communities it operates in a ‘PES-like fashion’ and can be used as a model for other, similar projects in future.
This is a comparatively recent project, only fully approved in 2013, and so can be seen as a hopeful sign for future developments.
(http://cdm.unfccc.int/Projects/DB/TUEV-SUED1245851243.49/view)
Within the forestry sector there are also a few examples of public/private conservation banking or offsetting. To explain terms:
Conservation banking is based on the concept that markets can deliver “offsets” to those who need them.
Habitat banking is a type of conservation banking where the particular habitat types are conserved through a compensation activity.
Species banking has the purpose of generating an increase in the population of a particular species through the compensation activity.
The central idea behind conservation banking/offsetting is that ‘credits’ can be bought by paying for environmental investment elsewhere. The goal of biodiversity offsetting, for example, is to achieve “no net loss” and preferably a net gain of biodiversity
PES schemes in the UNECE region 23
Example 11: Conservation Banking in California, USA
To protect endangered species, California introduced conservation banking in 1995. To receive approval to sell endangered species offset credits, agencies must agree to conserve high quality habitats. In addition, a conservation easement, legally restricting the usage of the land covered, must be signed. Normally a permanent endowment fund is set up to pay for ongoing site management and maintenance. Credits can be sold to compensate for public infrastructure projects and the impacts of private development. Since the introduction of the policy, more than 100 conservation banks have been set up in California. The annual market volume for the entire US has been estimated at $200 million. (TEEB for local and regional policymakers. Chapter 8, p.158)
in habitat structure, species composition, ecosystem function, and land use practices associated with biodiversity. “Currencies” can be used to determine biodiversity losses (in destroyed areas) and gains (increases in biodiversity value of restored areas). To determine these, area alone can be considered, or the area and quality of biodiversity. Success can be determined by whether offsets achieved better conservation outcomes than would have occurred if the offset had not taken place (TEEB ).
Example 11 refers to conservation banking linked to species protection, which could inspire forest sector policy makers to start similar projects. It should be borne in mind that this approach is only suitable for habitats that can be restored within a reasonable time-frame as lengthy restoration processes may lead to contrary impacts, such as ecological damage.
The EU Habitats Directive also allows for offset schemes. An innovative example exists in France where, through a public bank, a type of trading scheme has been instituted. The scheme, CDC Biodiversité, from the Caisse des Dépôts, a public institution, aims to offset the residual impacts of construction work which could not be avoided or reduced. Project managers subject to legal obligations to offset, or offsetting on a voluntary basis, can be represented by CDC Biodiversité which can also organize environmental operations such as creating “natural assets reserves” likely to be recognized as offsetting measures for land development projects. The first project was launched in the Camargue, on the Crau Plain in France.
The Value of Forests24
3.5 PES schemes at the regional level
The trans-boundary dimension of watersheds and water-related ecosystems can easily apply to forests. Forest management measures in one region or country could lead to environmental impacts in another, for example, floods caused by forest management measures such as clear fell in the upstream part of a watershed. Existing trans-boundary networks and protected areas might lend themselves to the consideration of PES scheme development. In protected area networks, the type of protection status would need to be assessed, together with the type of scheme, which could possibly be developed, for example linked to biodiversity conservation or offsetting.
Third parties, other than governments or private institutions, often act as project drivers for PES schemes, especially where they expand across national boundaries. This role is often taken by NGOs such as Nature Conservancy in the USA, and the WWF.
Trans-boundary projects currently under development include a number of pilot projects under the auspices of the UNECE Water Convention to implement the earlier “Recommendations on Payments for Ecosystem Service in Integrated Water Resources Management” (UNECE, 2007) in trans-boundary watersheds.
Example 12: Krygyzstan water project
In the area of Lake Issyk-Kul in Kyrgyzstan, a 2006 project led by the Central Asian Regional Environmental Centre (CAREC) focuses on the development of five different PES schemes. One pilot project focuses on improving land use practice within the runoff area in the Chon-Aksuu river basin and the reconstruction of the water-pipeline network of the Temir. The purpose of the project is to change water and land use practices through the implementation of the ecosystem approach. The aim is to provide people with clean drinking water by improving the conditions of water flow formation in the upstream water catchment. The seller of the ecosystem service under this project is the forest located within the water flow formation area of the Chon-Aksuu river basin. The water-user federation along with the population pays the forestry unit for additional expenses caused by the introduction of an ecosystem approach in forest and pasture management.
The project was begun in December 2006, continued and updated 2011, with completion expected end 2013.
(http://www.carecnet.org/programmes-and-activities/environmental-management-and-policy/payment-for-ecosystem-services/integrating-pes-and-reducing-emissions-from-deforestation-and-degradation-redd-in-kyrgyzstan/?lang=en)
Similarly, in Ukraine, project partners are introducing payments for ecosystem services in the border areas of the Tisza River Basin, including a draft toolkit to help public authorities to introduce PES in the Ukrainian part of the river basin.
Ecosystem services at the policy level: enabling conditions 27
4. ECOSYSTEM SERVICES AT THE POLICY
LEVEL: ENABLING CONDITIONSA number of preconditions for the implementation of PES emerge through the
literature and practical experiences. The following list, which is not exhaustive, illustrates some key considerations:
Legal and Institutional Framework
Ownership and Tenure rights
Stakeholders and Negotiations
Monitoring, Enforcement and Compliance
Ensuring Permanence and Avoiding Negative Impacts
4.1 Legislative and institutional framework
For PES to succeed, a number of legal and institutional frameworks need to be in place, as well as a particular administrative culture (Primmer et al., 2010). A regulatory framework is needed to:
Allow deployment.
Legal recognition of services.
Enabling of contracts and payments.
Avoid counterproductive or unintended distributional effects.
Rules and institutions must have mechanisms to enforce contracts based on reliable contract law with good governance, and credible enforcement (IUCN, 2006, p.9). Institutions are also important to:
Facilitate transaction and reduce transaction costs
Coordinate with other policies and mechanisms
Set up insurance or other mechanisms to manage risks
Provide related business services should the need arise
Furthermore, institutions define the roles of different actors in a PES scheme. Figure 2 below demonstrates the range of actors with a role in a PES mechanism, including its establishment and in the maintenance of registers to keep track of payments (TEEB).
The Value of Forests28
Figure 2: Institutional actors involved in PES deals
Supportive
Policies
Regulatory
Agencies Buyer
&
Buyer
Orgs
Project
Design
Services
Business
Support
Services
Science of
Ecosystem
Services
3rd Party
Certifiers
3rd Party
VerifiersRegistries
Supplier
&
Supplier
Orgs
Project
Developers
Technical
Support
Services
Brokers
Finance
for
DesignMarket Information
External actors & issuesaffecting the PES System
Actors & issues withinthe PES Deal
Source: Adapted from Bracer et al. 2007, TEEB for national and international policy makers. Chapter 5, p.20)
Institutions provide vital direction for the valuation, utilization and conservation of ecosystem services (Vatn, 2010), helping to avoid conflict between the conservation and use of natural resources. Integration of conservation and management can provide traditional natural resource managers with new competencies, improve the sustainability and public perception of their business, and maintain competitiveness (Primmer and Wolf, 2009; Primmer and Karppinen, 2010).
Effective governance is needed to support the establishment of PES schemes via legislation, for example laws to implement a new public payment scheme, which can then be applied for as in the METSO pilot in Finland and KOMET in Sweden. Government support can also enable changes in legislative practice, as has been the case for METSO II in Finland. Legislation can also be amended to include provisions which facilitate PES such as in Bulgaria where, since 2011, PES for forests is part of the forestry law (WWF Danube Carpathian Programme).
Legislation also provides mechanisms to maintain ecosystem values that go beyond PES schemes, for instance in protected areas. In Latvia, for example, a special law regulates compensation for management restrictions on protected natural areas and micro-reserves. In France, numerous fiscal mechanisms apply to protected areas, including land tax exemptions in Natura 2000 areas, and land revenue tax reductions for expenses for the preservation or restoration of protected areas. In Denmark, the private forest sector receives an average of $10 - $15/ha in subsidies for specific management changes, such as the introduction of native species, setting aside forests as nature reserves and using environmentally friendly silvicultural techniques (Standing Forestry Committee, November 2008). As the TEEB recognises agri-environment schemes of this nature as PES schemes, these can also be considered as PES examples.
Ecosystem services at the policy level: enabling conditions 29
All the above create a legislative climate in which forest ecosystem services are recognized as having value and in need of conservation/restoration, a necessary prerequisite for forest-based PES schemes to develop.
Ensuring the existence of a supportive legal and regulatory context is, however, only the first of the many steps in PES developments. Further steps can take the form of a review of the existing framework and an assessment of the extent to which it is supportive of PES, as well as establishing supporting organizations and targets. Figure 3 below highlights the main stages in PES development.
Figure 3: Main stages in PES development
Create Supportive Legal / Regulatory Context
(includes establishingtenure / rights)
Develop the Rules forthe Market or Trading
(includes determiningwhat is being sold, whois paying for what, etc.)
Identify Services,Buyers & Sellers
(includes assessment of complementary goals /
motivations)
NegotiateDeal Details
(includes contracts,agreements,
verifications, etc.)
Markets &
PaymentServices
Establish Supporting Organizations &
Services
(includes verificationservices, etc.)
Market
Development
Potential Deal
Identification
Agreement
Structuring
Implementation
Source: Adapted from Brand 2002, TEEB for national and international policy makers Chapter 5, p.18)
The exhaustive WWF survey of Serbian legislation: “Analysis of PES Needs and Feasibility in Serbia” by Goran Seculic (funded by UNEP and GEF) is an excellent example of the type of work referred to in this section. It summarises all the recent changes in Serbian environmental laws (e.g. The Law on Waste), their allowances, penalties funding arrangements (e.g. for forests) and implications for PES. The 2012 paper “Paying for water-related forest services: a survey on Italian payment mechanisms” by Pettenella, Vidale, Gatto and Secco is a good example of a more specific work, examining the impact of one part of a law on water-supply, which is necessary background for any potential water-supply PES scheme.
4.2 Forest tenure rights
For PES to work, forest tenure must be clearly defined and recognized. Tenure is a generic term referring to a variety of arrangements that allocate rights to, and often set conditions on, those who hold land. Tenure regulates access to and use of resources.
The Value of Forests30
“Ownership” refers to a particular type of tenure in which strong rights are allocated to the landholder. Tenure arrangements may involve exclusive access (when only one person or group has access), or different types of access for different groups of people at different times. In addition to inalienable title, there are many other forms of tenure. Tenure theorists describe tenure as a “bundle of rights” (FAO, 2011). These rights need to be effectively registered and administered (IUCN, 2006 PAY, p.9).
The ecosystem service provider must hold the rights to the service as a condition for PES because if property or use rights are unclear, the buyer of the service cannot define the conditions of payment. In situations where the land is ‘open access’ with no clear private, public or communal owner, PES is not the solution. Instead, collectively defined rules will need to be developed for the management and conservation of the area concerned (Ostrom, 1990; Vatn, 2010). Where resource access and ownership are disputed, “buyers” have little incentive to participate in a PES scheme as there is no guarantee that they will get what they are paying for. (TEEB)
Forests throughout the UNECE region are governed by a range of different ownership and tenure rights. In Europe, for example, approximately half the forested area is privately owned, though this differs significantly from country to country. In Austria, Finland, France, Iceland, Norway, Slovenia and the UK more than 25% of the forested area is privately owned but public ownership is predominant in Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Sweden and Switzerland (Schmithüsen et al., 2010). Similarly, diverse rights apply throughout the Russian Federation and North America. As previously stated, PES schemes are applicable to all situations where ownership is clear, however they are generally easier to apply to private forests and so are currently used on a larger scale in countries with predominantly private ownership. User-rights will also need to be respected, such as the right enshrined in the laws and traditional practice in many countries in Central and Eastern Europe for the public to use the non-wooden products and services of the forest.
4.3 Motivation and responsibilities of landowners
The success of PES is also influenced by the many socio-psychological and socio-cultural factors behind the use and conservation of ecosystem services and their valuation. For example, social motivations about ecosystem services may determine whether PES will encourage further conservation or just supplant voluntary conservation (Vatn, 2010).
It is also important to consider the legal management responsibilities of the landowner in the establishment of PES. For example, if land owners are already responsible for preserving specific trees, modifying this requirement to compensation for setting aside entire habitat patches as part of a PES might face little resistance as the precedent has already been made. However if the land owners have no such responsibility the controls needed to enforce the new PES scheme may be substantial.
Ecosystem services at the policy level: enabling conditions 31
Wherever possible, existing rights of landowners should be maintained under PES schemes (Vatn, 2010). For example, Finnish landowners have an exclusive right to produce timber on their land, so their payment is for timber income loss rather than for conservation. This reflects the Finnish cultural view that forest land is primarily for timber production.
For the landowner the opportunity cost of changing practices as part of a PES scheme must not be perceived as too high. It should be possible to improve the supply of the ecosystem service through a change in resource use such as land set aside, and the adoption of more sustainable practices such as the use of water-saving irrigation techniques (Wunder et al 2008).
Much useful documentation is available on this topic, for example the 2012 CEPF Statement on Payments for Ecosystem Services (presented at the 2012 Newforex Conference) gives an excellent overview of the concerns of forest landowners across Europe. Similarly, Gavriil Xanthopolous’s 2012 summary of issues affecting Greek forest managers gives valuable insight into their concerns and motivations. (http://www.thinkforest.efi.int/files/attachments/events/2012/xanthopoulos_-_statements_on_pes_made_on_27-11-2012.pdf).
4.4 Stakeholders and negotiations
The forest ecosystem service and its provider must be fully understood for PES to function. As well as being clear about who will benefit, there is a need to assess historical and expected trends in demand and supply as well as other contextual factors. This is vital in targeting payments to those who can actually deliver the desired service (TEEB).
The identification and participation of a number of key stakeholders is also necessary when making a PES agreement in forestry. Figure 4 below presents the variety of forest PES stakeholders and their interactions. As forests are frequently of value to the wider community, or even the entire region, the social context also needs to be taken into account, to identify the parties that need to be involved in the agreement’s negotiation. As noted in the TEEB report, “wide participation in decisions relating to PES design and implementation can help ensure transparency and acceptance and to avoid the covert privatization of common resources” (TEEB). Forest stakeholder analysis could help guide negotiations towards an agreement which is socially and politically acceptable as well as institutionally feasible. (IUCN, 2006).
As forest stakeholders may include the general public, or specific groups within it, capacity building and appropriate support are needed to ensure that these potentially weaker-voiced stakeholders are able to participate in negotiations, as successful PES schemes need a strong commitment by all parties. (TEEB). Advocates or representatives will be needed to ensure that that changes to forest use are acceptable to them, and bad-publicity repercussions thereby minimized. (IUCN, 2006, p10).
The Value of Forests32
Forest PES schemes are easier to implement where there is equal bargaining power between stakeholders, especially the service providers and the beneficiaries. “This can affect who is included in the scheme, the way the money is shared, the rate of payment and the conditions set for service provisions and access” (TEEB).
As a result of this, completing a forestry PES deal may take a long time. To complete negotiations successfully all parties need to understand each other’s interests, assets, capacities and powers. Throughout the negotiations, “the aim should be to form an agreement that specifies the design and rules for operating a payment scheme, which is effective, efficient, enforceable, transparent, equitable and sustainable” (IUCN, 2006, PAY, p. 8). Given the strong emotional attachment many regions have to their forests, early involvement of the right parties must be ensured, with a mutually acceptable intermediary as facilitator, for example a well-respected local NGO with a track record in forestry, or a community group or trusted government agency.
4.5 Monitoring, enforcement and compliance
All of the forestry PES examples in this document involve long time scales (in some cases, decades) or even permanent change in use. Therefore effective monitoring and enforcement is necessary to ensure the continued functioning of the PES scheme, the delivery of the intended service and its measurement. Payments need to be clearly linked to service provision and should be withdrawn if users of the forest resource abandon management practices associated with the service. Monitoring data of the services at the site can help improve the targeting of payments (TEEB).
How compliance will be determined and monitored needs to be decided in advance. For instance, if compliance is assessed through field inspections of forest conditions,
Governance Structure
● National/regional/local government/agencies● Multi-actor organisations eg watershed authorities● Committees eg including gov’t, NGOs, private sector etc
Ensure transparency and impartiality
Financing and payment Mechanism
● direct public payments● direct private payments
(eg raised by % free on water rates)● tax incentives● voluntary markets (eg organic)● certification programs (eg labels)● etc
Beneficiaries
Mostly public sector (national/regional/local government, international bodies etc)Private sector (usually at local level)Citizens / consumers
(via NGOs, public or private sector)
Actor “providing”
service
(eg land user)
Single famers /associations
Forestry owners / workers
Communities
Figure 4: PES stakeholders and their interactions
Source: Adapted from Pagiola 2003, TEEB for national and international policy makers. Chapter 5, p. 10
Ecosystem services at the policy level: enabling conditions 33
the methods and procedures used, and access for the institutions involved, need to be determined. Self-monitoring and monitoring by service sellers and buyers using agreed procedures is also an option but, whatever the approach, it is crucial to clearly delineate responsibilities for providing compliance and agree on sanctions in the event of non-compliance (IUCN, 2006, PAY, p.9). As many of forestry PES schemes involve vast areas of land, agreements on sampling and degree of non-compliance or delivery failure will also have to be agreed.
Control systems are an essential part of any PES scheme. Where these are already in place, for example to promote sustainable forest management or agro-environmental schemes, establishing a PES can be easy. However, this is rarely the case and the establishment of new control systems is often required, usually adapted from already existing institutions and structures (Vatn, 2010) and shaped to the PES scheme (Corbera et al., 2007; Primmer et al., 2010).
The effectiveness of forestry PES schemes is closely tied to the regulatory base and enforcement process. The challenge is to work out how much forest owners might be expected to undertake activities at their own expense and how much more they might be willing to do with the support of a PES. This needs to take into account the allocation of environmental rights and duties which may vary widely between different regions and countries. For instance, where downstream populations assert a right to clean water, it may be considered that upstream landowners, such as forest owners and managers, should bear the cost of reducing pollution. On the other hand, if landowners enjoy
Fotalia, 2014
The Value of Forests34
unencumbered rights to manage their land as they see fit, it may be the beneficiaries of the water services who have to bear the burden of paying them to modify their practices (TEEB). TEEB states that “PES should ideally be used to reward good resource management practices that go beyond legal requirements or customary norms.” (TEEB). In the context of forest owners, it is important to understand the management responsibilities which are already part of the forest management plan, so that PES is used only where conservation and the sustainable management of land go beyond obligations stipulated by law.
An example of the type of monitoring framework which needs to be in place for PES scheme is the UK Woodland Carbon Code, instituted by the Forestry Commission of Great Britain. Accreditation systems of this type do not create PES in and of themselves, but are part of the monitoring/enforcement/compliance system which needs to be in place for PES schemes, especially ‘cap and trade’ ones, to attract serious investment.
4.6 Permanence and avoiding negative impacts
Permanence refers to the provision of an ecosystem service over the long term. This may be undermined by unforeseen events such as fires, hurricanes and the invasion of alien species, or illegal logging. These factors should be taken into account in the PES conservation contract (OECD, 2010, p.52). In this context, climate change adaptation strategies are crucial to ensure the continued provision of PES.
Maximizing the provision of one ecosystem service may have negative impacts on the provision of others, in which case trade-offs will be involved (TEEB). One example of such a trade-off would be the encouragement of a non-indigenous species for rapid carbon sequestration at the expense of other species with higher biodiversity values. Normally this would only be an issue if changes in ecosystem services provision occur
Example 13: The Forestry Commission of Great Britain Woodland Carbon Code
The Woodland Carbon Code is a voluntary code, which is designed to provide reassurance to investors in woodland creation for purposes of carbon sequestration. A number of British companies, including The Green Insurance Company and Marks and Spencer have invested in creation of new woodland, as a result of the Code.
Landowners registered agree to provide independent verification of responsible management of forests, and estimates of carbon sequestration, as well as meeting other criteria. Full details of projects are submitted to the Forestry Commission with the above information as well as long-term plans. In return, the project is registered and thereby its attractiveness to investment increased.
The main focus on the code is on woodland creation, with the additional benefits to biodiversity, recreation, timber and fuel production, soil and water protection and so on.
http://www.forestry.gov.uk/forestry/INFD-863FFL
Ecosystem services at the policy level: enabling conditions 35
outside the established PES monitoring and accounting framework, therefore, if the risk is high, the monitoring framework would need to be extended beyond the geographic boundaries of the PES programme, to be able to introduce measures to address it (OECD, 2010, p.51).
Other negative impacts include ‘leakage’ where a PES scheme relieves pressure on one ecosystem, only for it to be moved to another. For example, where payments are made to a forest owner for carbon sequestration, this is of little global use if other forests are felled to make up the difference. The implication here is that further involvement with extra stakeholders is needed, bodies outside the current agreement that will be affected by leakage. It also has strong implications for monitoring to determine if the demand that the PES scheme ‘thwarts’ is being taken up elsewhere in the region, or, indeed, in the world. Leaving aside the obvious environmental problems of leakage, it could also generate bad publicity that might destroy the chances of future schemes, as it leaves PES schemes open to the accusation that they merely move a problem elsewhere.
There is a similar problem with the concept of ‘additionality’. If the payment for an environmental scheme is the sole cause of an environmental benefit, then it is said to demonstrate additionality. However, forest schemes are notoriously multi-factorial, and it can be problematic proving that such a benefit came entirely from actions undertaken by the forest manager/owner as a result of payment, instead of from changes in the law (especially as changes in environmental law are usually a prerequisite of PES schemes), changes in practice that the manager/owner may have instituted anyway, or even knock-on effects from other ecosystems. Once again, the bodies that monitor forest PES schemes may have to cast their net wide to include similar schemes without benefit of PES that can be used as ‘control’ studies, to demonstrate additionality has actually taken place.
Additionality is of particular concern in forestry as many landowners look after their forests wisely and do not view them simply as purely commercial enterprises. In the United Kingdom, for example, the Forestry Commission has adopted the approach of combining regulation with education and incentives to encourage good forest practice. To qualify for incentives for forest management, owners have to accept the minimum standards laid down in a series of guidelines that cover water, habitats and biodiversity, and archaeology, for instance. Some forest owners adopt higher standards in their forest management than the minimum standards enshrined in the various guidelines. Many other UNECE countries have worked to increase forest-owner awareness of the impact of their activities on others who benefit from the existence of well-managed forests, showing how low-cost changes in management practice may yield disproportionately high benefits to forest stakeholders in terms of conservation and protection of the woodland habitat. Introduction of a PES scheme when such awareness already exists risks losing goodwill, and may have the effect of ‘rewarding’ landowners who have not promoted good practice.
What role can PES play in moving towards a green economy? 37
5. WHAT ROLE CAN PES PLAY IN MOVING
TOWARDS A GREEN ECONOMY?The Action Plan for the Forest Sector of member states in the UNECE region in a
Green Economy (hereafter Action Plan) specifically refers to compensating suppliers for providing ecosystem services wherever possible, and PES is a possible mechanism for providing this. According to TEEB, “there is potential to scale up existing PES (from local initiatives to national coverage), to implement PES in more countries, to make PES more efficient and to address issues of permanence” (TEEB). The possibilities to apply PES at a larger scale and the associated benefits for a green economy are further discussed in this Chapter. The issues for consideration are:
How expanding PES schemes could lead towards a green economy
PES as a complement to regulation and other measures
Political considerations in promoting PES as part of green economy measures
5.1 Expanding PES schemes: towards a green economy
The Action Plan recognizes the forest sector as making a maximal contribution to human well-being through the supply of ecosystem services, and its necessary role in creating a green economy. As has been discussed, implementation of PES is one way to do this, through improving resource management practices beyond the legal minimum, creating income and sustainable livelihoods for rural (and in some cases, urban) populations.
PES could, for example, provide additional income for sustainable forest management practices if there is a willingness to pay for a service they provide. This promotes rural development and ensures that populations maintain their income and livelihoods in rural areas. PES schemes furthermore help to provide sustainable ecosystem services, as the payment component introduces the notion of scarcity of the ecosystem service and encourages its users not to over-use or under-value them.
Scaling up PES schemes would also result in improved, resilient ecosystems. Forest-related PES schemes reduce forest degradation by providing economic incentives to maintain forest ecosystems for their essential functions and services. Such schemes may become increasingly important as the pressure on forests increases due to climate change impacts such as pests, diseases and natural disasters. Further pressure may come on wood resources from forests from renewable energy policies, as steep increases in wood production are required to meet ambitious renewable energy targets. It is increasingly important, therefore, to promote a debate on what is needed to ensure that essential forest ecosystem services are available, in addition to their more widely understood roles in biodiversity conservation and timber production. Discussion of PES would be an essential part of this debate.
The Value of Forests38
5.2 PES as a complement to regulation and other measures
As a market-based approach, some commentators consider PES to be a more effective policy tool than government intervention. Although PES schemes may be viewed as a market solution to environmental problems (e.g. Engel et al., 2008), they seldom operate as pure free markets, but rather as a mixed market-state-community management configuration (Vatn, 2010). Others argue that PES can operate unethically as a hidden subsidy to encourage compliance with existing laws, unfairly burdening public expenses where schemes are entirely government funded. (TEEB). PES can also be seen as a mechanism to enforce the “user-pays principle” which is the variation of the polluter-pays principle calling upon the user of a natural resource to bear the cost of using that resource (OECD, 1997, Glossary of Environment Statistics).
TEEB argues that PES can be more cost-effective than strict enforcement as well as more progressive, in particular where benefits are provided beyond minimum legal requirements. Clearly this depends on the specific national and local circumstances. Voluntary PES agreements can be particularly promising when regulatory or enforcement capacity is weak, or where little or no regulatory authority exists (FAO, 2010). Furthermore, in many cases the buyer has a chance for a public relations gain when they are seen as championing the environment, which would not have been the case if they merely complied with legislation.
PES also has the flexibility to secure potential gains in cost-effectiveness when compared to indirect payments or other regulatory approaches (OECD, 2010; Engel et al., 2008). Voluntary agreements can be a useful alternative to government rules and regulations, as they lead to a more inclusive solution through the involvement of different stakeholders (FAO, 2010).
PES may also work as a temporary measure, motivating new management practices and technologies, which may possibly become economic in their own right over time (Johnstone, N. and Bishop, J. 2007, cited in TEEB for national and international policy makers. Chapter 5, p. 10).
Other voluntary approaches such as certification or labelling may also reward a landowner who practises sustainable land management above the legal minimum. These may complement PES or provide an alternative mechanism. In fact there is an ongoing debate on the extent to which labelling or certification may be considered a PES-type mechanism. Governments could create conditions that favour certification schemes through the adoption of appropriate laws and regulations and though independent certification bodies. These independent bodies are essential to give credibility to ‘chain of custody schemes’, for example, where goods may be handled by several different organizations.
What role can PES play in moving towards a green economy? 39
5.3 The Politics of PES
Whilst the foregoing has made the case for the usefulness and application of PES, it must be acknowledged that this approach does not exist in a vacuum and will need to ‘win the hearts and minds’ of the governments, private sector and the general public in the countries in which it is hoped it will be adopted. Other apparently benign environmental approaches, such as renewable energy for wood, have turned out to be politically explosive as commentators and eventually populations, have become increasingly concerned about potential or supposed impacts on land for food production. It would be unfortunate for similar bad publicity to engulf the idea of PES.
Much could be written on the possibly political/social impact of PES and how it will be perceived by the public but the foregoing information has implications for the ‘public relations’ side of PES, for good or ill.
On the plus side, the ‘selling points’ of PES are:
Public relations boost for companies: being involved in a PES offers a publicity boost for the companies involved: especially important for sales of products such as bottled water and Coca-Cola®, where competition is intense. Undoubt-edly these companies will present themselves as environmental champions, in-cluding the information in advertising materials and so on. This is a benefit for the company involved, but it may mean that the reputation of PES may rise or fall with the reputation of these high-profile companies.
Easy to understand: Funding for environmental protection in most countries is done by complex systems of tax, subsidy, penalty and budget. PES makes a simple link between the use of an environmental service and the payment, which goes directly to providing it. Any system like this which can be easily grasped by the public, the media and opinion formers can be immediately seen to be ‘doing good’ in environmental matters: forests are saved, water supplies are ensured.
Raising Awareness: Linked to the above, the easily understood PES arrange-ments have already been shown to be useful tools in raising awareness about environmental issues with the general public. Whilst there are examples of this effect within the UNECE region, the impact on public awareness only seemsto have been measured in a PES programme undertaken in Latin America,specifically Peru.
The Value of Forests40
These three positives may seem unassailable, but there are three corresponding negatives which may arise:
Paying for Damage: Whilst the emphasis of PES has always been on improving the quality and permanence of environmental systems, it would be easy for media commentators to label the contributions of companies as conscience money, paying for irreplaceable environmental damage. It will be the job of any future PES scheme to address and allay such fears which will undoubtedly arise. Trading schemes will be particularly vulnerable to this criticism.
Seen as Public Relations stunt: one media-friendly aspect of PES projects is that they are high profile with obvious and immediate gains. This very accessibility leaves the projects open to accusations of simple good advertising or PR ‘stunts’ for the company participating in them. Given the previous environmental record of some private companies currently involved in PES projects, such an accusation could carry considerable force: that the PES project is mere ‘window dressing’ for an unscrupulous organization which is perfectly willing to despoil the environment elsewhere. Companies such as Coca-Cola and Nestlé have previous environmental ‘strikes’ against them of this kind, and whilst their wish to restore their environmental credibility is admirable, they may be open to these types of accusations.
Diversion of funds: One of the ‘pluses’ of PES is that the money paid goes straight to the environmental service provider. It is not gathered as a tax and redistributed across the economy. This could be seen as a downside, however. It could be that the environmental service paid in the PES scheme is not the most vulnerable, or most vital, service in the region, however it will benefit due to its fortunate proximity to an identifiable user. For example, PES tends to favour environments involved with populated regions rather than, remote areas which may be under more environmental stress.
Example 14: ECOAN Project, Peru
ECOAN, a respected NGO worked with local communities to improve the quality of Polyepsis forests, the wood of which had formerly been used as firewood by the local community. In common with all good PES projects, stakeholders were consulted about possible solutions, which eventually included the provision of more efficient wood-burning stoves to the community, reducing the need for firewood.
In addition, a survey about the degree of the community’s environmental awareness and concern before and after the project found that those parties directly involved in the process, perhaps unsurprisingly, had more knowledge and commitment and were more likely to change their actions as a result. Whilst it has been assumed that PES can lead to greater environmental awareness of this kind, at the time of writing only this project seems to have measured it.
Cranford, M., Mourato, S. (2011) Community conservation and a two-stage approach to payments for ecosystem services. Ecological Economics. 71: 89–98
What role can PES play in moving towards a green economy? 41
It is also sometimes argued that PES schemes can be unfair and can provide perverse incentives where payments go to those who have degraded or threaten to degrade their land, rather than those already sustainably managing it.
There will be a need for more research and consideration of counters to the above, plus careful forethought over such issues as to which private partners some PES schemes may wish to be involved in. These political considerations need to be given just as much heed as the funding and monitoring resources of a region considering a PES project.
Fotalia, 2014
Future directions and recommendations 43
6. FUTURE DIRECTIONS AND
RECOMMENDATIONSAll of the foregoing should make clear that forest-based PES schemes are not a
universal solution and do not respond to all needs. It is a complementary tool to legislation, regulation and democratic accountability. Identifying the tipping point where payment for a forestry environmental service would be used in preference to environmental legislation is not an easy task: cost-benefit analysis and political temperature-taking will be essential, especially given the strong attachment many regions have to their forests. To operate, forest-based PES schemes nevertheless need appropriate legislative and institutional frameworks as well as cost effective implementation. Bundling different services together may help to diminish transaction costs.
As forest use and tenure is usually deeply rooted in a specific region’s culture, it seems that PES will need a proliferation of different and larger projects rather than universal adopting of a single model. With this, critical questions will appear that should be addressed, such as negative impacts on the forest and other environments, permanence and additionality. Capacity building is also necessary to implement this approach. Special attention should be paid to securing tenure rights, because land-use is often the basis for schemes which normally compensate a restriction of land-use (timber production for example) or finance specific management measures on a specific type of land.
Some successful schemes have been developed from the demand side: where society and business have been willing to pay for a forest-based environmental service. In any case, consultations with all relevant stakeholders are critical, with special note being taken of how far-flung these may be in the case of forest services. Communication actions should not only be directed at ecosystem providers or buyers; they also should target decision-makers and the general public because political support is often needed, especially during the early phases of development. Pilot projects are often a good way to demonstrate the relevance of PES and show results and, of course, performance should be monitored in the widest sense, as outlined above, in order to win long-term support from donors.
The Value of Forests44
6.1 Recommendations
The UNECE Member States should broadly support the development of PES as a means of achieving some of the goals of the Action Plan. It can aid the successful promulgation of PES by drawing up a Code of Conduct concerning:
1. When to Use: Where its use is appropriate, and where other methods of forest/environmental protection would be more effective.
Method: Commissioning research on the topic, building on this general paper and other UNECE/UN/FAO resources to come up with a clear questionnaire/guidance document.
2. Valuation: Guidelines on valuation of PES projects to aid stakeholders in negotiating a fair settlement.
Method: Extending the materials in the Appendix to provide a set of guidelines regarding appropriate valuation methods for different situations and making use of the work currently developed by Forest Europe on Valuation of Forest Ecosystem Services.
3. Monitoring: Guidelines on methods for monitoring compliance, leakage and additionality in PES schemes, with information on which may be appropriate for different schemes.
Method: Drawing on Forestry and Timber Section expertise concerning monitoring of Forest Ecosystem Protection schemes.
4. Stakeholders: A range of techniques for ensuring the involvement of stakeholders, especially those which may not otherwise be heard (people on low-income, people indigenous to forest areas, the wider public). There should also be guidance on the appropriate level of effort that should be expended on this.
Method: A survey of methods used in successful PES schemes and elsewhere.
5. In addition, a virtual expert network should be established and supported by a virtual library of documents, valuation methods, case studies and projects on PES and forests, with an up to date list of contacts.
References 45
7. REFERENCESAdvisory Group on Finance Collaborative Partnership on Forests. 2012. 2012 Study
on Forest Financing.
Appleton, A.F., 2002. How New York City Used an Ecosystem Services Strategy Carried out Through an Urban-Rural Partnership to Preserve the Pristine Quality of Its Drinking Water and Save Billions of Dollars and What Lessons It Teaches about Using Ecosystem Services. November 2002. New York City. Paper presented at The Katoomba Conference / Tokyo, November 2002. Available at: http://assets.panda.org/downloads/pesnewyorkappetlon.pdf.
Bugalho M. N. 2012. Using Payment for Ecosystem Services to promote the responsible use of Mediterranean cork oak woodlands. ThinkForest Seminar, European Parliament, Brussels, 27th November 2012
Corbera, E., Soberianis, C.G., Brown, K., 2009. Institutional dimensions of payments for ecosystem services: an analysis of Mexico’s carbon forestry programme. Ecological Economics 68, 743–761.
Convention on Biological Diversity, 2010. Global Biodiversity Outlook 3, SCBD – Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, Montréal.
Convention on Biological Diversity, 2007. Technical Series 28 “An exploration of tools and methodologies for valuation of biodiversity and biodiversity resources and functions. Available at: http://www.cbd.int/doc/publications/cbd-ts-28.pdf
Cranford, M., Mourato, S. (2011) Community conservation and a two-stage approach to payments for ecosystem services. Ecological Economics. 71: 89–98
Cuperus et al. 2001. Env.Man. 27(1): 75-89.
Engel, S., Pagiola, S. & Wunder, S., 2008. Designing payments for environmental services in theory and practice: An overview of the issues. Ecological economics 65: 663-674.
FAO, 2010. Payments for environmental services within the context of the green economy, September 2010, available at: http://www.fao.org/docrep/013/al922e/al922e00.pdf.
FAO, 2005. Forest Resource Assessment.
Forest Europe. 2012. Draft Minutes of the Kickoff meeting. 28 June 2012, Madrid, Spain http://www.foresteurope.org/sites/default/files/Minutes_KickoffMeeting_EGVFES.pdf
Forestry Commission Great Britain 2012. The Carbon Code. http://www.forestry.gov.uk/forestry/INFD-863FFL
The Value of Forests46
Gutman, P., 2006. ‘PES: a WWF Perspective’. Presentation given at the Workshop on Conservation Finance, Global Biodiversity Forum, Curitiba, Brazil, 25 March 2006. http//assets.panda.org/downloads/peswwfmpo.pdf accessed 11 Nov. 2009.
IUCN Regional Office for Europe & IUCN Environmental Law Centre, 2009. Final report study on the economic value of groundwater and biodiversity in European forests. 070307/2007/486510. p. 90.
IUCN World Conservation Union, 2006. edited by Schmith, M., de Groot, D., Bergka,p, G. PAY establishing payments for watershed services.
Kangas, A., Kangas, J. & Kurttila, M., 2008. Decision support for forest management. Vol. 16: Managing forest ecosystems. Springer, New York, NY.
Kangas, A., Horne, P. & Leskinen, P., 2010. Measuring the value of information in multicriteria decision making. Forest Science 56(6): 558-566.
Johnstone, N., and Bishop J., 2007. Private Sector participation in Natural Resource Management: What Relevance in Developing Countries? International Review of Environmental and Resource economics 1: pp. 67-109
Leskinen, P. & Kangas, J., 2005. Multi-criteria natural resource management with preferentially dependent decision criteria. J. Environ. Manag. 77: 244-251.
Madsen, B., Carroll, N., Moore Brands, K., 2010. State of biodiversity markets report: Offset and compensation programs worldwide. Available at: http://www.ecosystemmarketplace.com/documents/acrobat/sbdmr.pdf.
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment [MA], 2005: Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Synthesis. Island Press, Washington, DC.
http://www.newNewforex.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=80:newNewforex-stakeholder-workshop-held-in-copenhagen&catid=7:news&Itemid=20
Noss, R. E., 1990. Indicators for monitoring biodiversity: A hierarchical approach. Conservation Biology, vol 4, no 4 pp 355-364.
OECD, 2010. Paying for Biodiversity: Enhancing the cost-effectiveness of payments for ecosystem services. ISBN 978-92-64-09026. Chapter 2 “Environmentally effective payments for ecosystem services”
OECD, 1997. Glossary of Environment Statistics, Studies in Methods, Series F, No. 67, United Nations, New York, available at: http://stats.oecd.org/glossary/detail.asp?ID=2827
Ostrom, E., 1990. Governing the commons: The evaluation of institutions for collective action. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge.
References 47
Pagiola, S., von Ritter K. & Bishop, J., 2004. Assessing the economic value of ecosystem conservation. Environment Department Paper n:o 101, World Bank, The World Bank Environment Department.
Pagiola, S. 2003. Guidelines for ‘pro-poor’ Payments for Environmental Services. World Bank. http://siteresources.worldbank.org.
Pettenella D., Vidale E., Gatto P., Secco L. 2012. Paying for water-related forest services: a survey on Italian payment mechanisms. Forest Biogeosciences and Forestry vol. 5, pp. 210-215 (Aug 2012) http://www.sisef.it/iforest/contents/?id=ifor0626-005
Primmer, E., and S. A. Wolf. 2009. Empirical accounting of adaptation to environmental change: organizational competences and biodiversity conservation in Finnish forest management. Ecology and Society 14:2, 27.
Primmer, E., Karppinen, H. 2010. Professional judgment in non-industrial private forestry: Forester attitudes and social norms influencing biodiversity conservation, Forest Policy and Economics 12:2, 136-146.
Requardt A. 2012 CEPF Draft Statement on Payments for Ecosystem Services. CEPF document. http://www.cepf-eu.org/vedl/CEPF%20statement_PES_Copenhagen%20Oct%202012%20Kopie.pdf
Schmithüsen, F. and Hirsch, F., 2010. Private Forest Ownership in Europe. Geneva Timber and Forest Study Paper 26. United Nations Geneva.
Sekulić, G. 2012 Analysis of PES Needs and Feasibility in Serbia. WWF Publication http://awsassets.panda.org/downloads/feasibility_of_pes_in_serbia.pdf
Stanton, T., Echavarria, M., Hamilton, K., Ott, C., 2010. State of watershed payments: An emerging marketplace. Ecosystem Marketplace. Available online: http://www.forest-trends.org/documents/files/doc_2438.pdf.
Standing Forestry Committee, 2008. Ad hoc Working Group on Valuation and Compensation Methods for Non-wood Forest Goods and Services, November 2008. available at: http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/fore/publi/sfc_wgi_final_report_112008_en.pdf
TEEB, 2010. The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity: Mainstreaming the Economics of Nature: A synthesis of the approach, conclusions and recommendations of TEEB. Available at: http://www.teebweb.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=bYhDohL_TuM%3d&tabid=924&mid=1813
TEEB, 2010. Ten Brink, P. (ed.) The economics of ecosystems and biodiversity in national and international policy making. Chapter 5. Earthscan, London. Draft chapter available at: http://www.teebweb.org/ForPolicymakers/TEEBforPolicyMakersDraftChapters/tabid/29432/Default.aspx
The Value of Forests48
TEEB, 2010. Wittmer, H. And Gundimeda, H. (ed.) The economics of ecosystems and biodiversity. TEEB for local and regional policy makers. Chapter 7. Earthscan, London.
UNECE, 2007. Convention on the Protection and Use of Transboundary Watercourses and International Lakes. Recommendations on Payments for Ecosystem Service in Integrated Water Resources Management. Available at: http://www.unece.org/env/water/publications/documents/PES_Recommendations_web.pdf
UNECE, 2005. Seminar on environmental services and financing for the protection and sustainable use of ecosystems. Geneva, 10-11 October 2005. National reports. Available at: http://www.unece.org/env/water/meetings/payment_ecosystems/seminar.htm.
UNEP. 2011 Towards a green economy. Forests investing in natural capital. Available at: http://www.unep.org/greeneconomy/Portals/88/documents/ger/GER_5_Forests.pdf
Vatn, A., 2010. An institutional analysis of payments for environmental services. Ecological Economics 69: 1245-1252.
Vatn, A., 2008. Payments for environmental services: An institutional analysis. The 10th biennial conference of ISEE ”Applying Ecological Economics for Social and Environmental Sustainability”, Nairobi, 7–11 August. 2008.
Vihervaara, P., Rönkä, M. & Walls, M., 2010. Trends in ecosystem service research: Early steps and current drivers. Ambio, 39: 314-324.
World Bank and WWF, 2003. Authored by Dudley, N., Stolton, S. Running Pure. The importance of forest protected areas to drinking water. World Bank/WWF Alliance for Forest Conservation and Sustainable Use, August 2003. Available at: http://wwf.panda.org/what_we_do/how_we_work/conservation/forests/publications/?uNewsID=8443
Wunder, S., 2005. Payments for environmental services: Some nuts and bolts. CIFOR Occasional Paper No. 42. Center for International Forestry Research, Bogor, Indonesia.
Wunder, S., Engel, S. & Pagiola, S., 2008. Taking stock: a comparative analysis of payments for environmental services programs in developed and developing countries. Ecological Economics 65: 834-852.
Xanthopolous G. 2012 Payments for Environmental Services (PES) in the context of the Greek Mediterranean Forests.
Zabel, A. & Holm-Müller, K., 2008. Conservation performance payments for carnivore conservation in Sweden. Conservation biology 22(2): 247-251.
Zandersen, M., Grönvik Bråten, K. & Lindhjem, H., 2009. Payment for and management of ecosystem services. Issues and Options in the Nordic Context. TemaNord 2009:571. Nordic Council of Ministers. 120 pp. + Annex 1-2. Copenhagen.
References 49
Background references
Cashore, B. & Vertinsky I., 2000. Policy networks and firm behaviours: Governance systems and firm responses to external demands for sustainable forest Management. Policy Sciences 33: 1-30.
Coase, R.H., 1960. The problem of social cost. The Journal of Law and Economics 3(1): 1-44.
Bishop, J., Kapila, S., Hicks, F., Mitchell, P. & Vorhies, F. , 2008. Building Biodiversity Business.
Shell International Limited and the International Union for Conservation of Nature: London,UK, and Gland, Switzerland. 164 pp.
Defra, 2007. An introductory guide to valuing ecosystem services. Available at: http://www.defra.gov.uk.
Díaz, S., Fargione, J., Chapin III, F.S. & Tilman, D., 2006. Biodiversity loss threatens human well-being. PLoS Biology 4(8): 1300-1305, e277.
Falconer, K. & Saunders, S., 2002. Transaction costs for SSSIs and policy design. Land Use Policy 19(2): 157-166.
Forest Trends & The Katoomba Group, 2008. Payments for Ecosystem Services. Getting started: A Primer. Forest Trends, The Katoomba Group and UNEP. Available at: http://www.unep.org/pdf/PaymentsForEcosystemServices_en.pdf.
IUCN, the Nature Conservancy, the World Bank 2004: “How much is an ecosystem worth? Assessing the economic value of conservation”.
Kontoleon, A., Pascual, U. & Swanson, T. (eds.), 2007. Biodiversity Economics: principles, methods and applications. Cambridge Universtiy Press, UK.
Langpap, C.& Wu J. 2004. Voluntary conservation of endangered species: when does no regulatory assurance mean no conservation? Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 47: 435–45.
Ninan, K.N. (ed.), 2009. Conserving and valuing ecosystem services and biodiversity: economic, institutional and social challenges. Earthscan, UK.
Paloniemi Riikka, Varho Vilja. 2009. Changing ecological and cultural states and preferences of nature conservation policy: The case of nature values trade in South-Western Finland Journal of Rural Studies, Volume 25, Issue 1, January, Pages 87-97.
Pigou, A.C., 1920. The economics of welfare. London, Macmillan.
Rivera, J., Oetzel, J. deLeon, P. Starik, M. 2009. Business responses to environmental and social protection policies: toward a framework for analysis. Policy Sciences 42: 3–32.
The Value of Forests50
Rockström, J., Steffen, W., Noone, K., Persson, Å., Chapin , F., Lambin, E., Lenton,T., Scheffer, R., Folke, C., Schellnhuber, H., Nykvist, B., De Wit, C.A., Hughes, T., van der Leeuw, S., Rodhe, H., Sörlin, S., Snyder, P.K., Costanza, R., Svedin, U., Falkenmark,M., Karlberg, L., Corell, R.W., Fabry, V.J., Hansen, J., Walker, B., Liverman, D., Richardson,K., Crutzen, P. and Foley, J., 2009. Planetary boundaries: Exploring the safe operatingspace for humanity. Ecology and Society 14(2): 32. [online] URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol14/iss2/art32/.
Rørstadt, P.K., Vatn, A. & Kvakkestadt, V. 2007: Why do transaction costs of agricultural policies vary? Agricultural Economics 36: 1-11.
Selman, M., Greenhalgh, S., Branosky, E., Jones, C. & Guiling, J., 2009. Water quality trading: An international overview. Washington, DC, World Resources Institute.
Vatn, A., 2005. Institutions and environment. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Fotalia, 2014
51Annex
Annex 1: Overview of valuation methods
Economic valuation is based on the concept of total economic value. Total economic value can be looked at from two angles: use values and non-use values (see Table 1 below).
Table 1: Possible types of economic value commonly identified in the literature and
links to the classification of forest goods and services
Source: Standing Forestry Committee ad hoc Working Group on Valuation and Compensation Methods for Non-wood goods and services, November 2008: http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/fore/publi/sfc_wgi_final_report_112008_en.pdf).
Use value Non-use value
Direct use value
Indirect use value
Option value Existence value
Bequest value
Extractive, consumptive or structural value, mainly derived from goods that can be extracted, consumed or enjoyed directly
Services that the environment provides
Value attached to maintaining the possibility of obtaining benefits from ecosystem goods and services at a later date, including from ecosystem services that appear to have a low value now, but could have a much higher value in future because of new information and knowledge
Value people derive from the knowledge that something exists, even if they never plan to use it
Value derived from the desire to pass on ecosystems to future generations
Material goods Cultural and amenity services
Regulating services Supporting services
All services All services Supporting services
The Value of Forests52
Use values can be divided into direct use values, indirect use values and option values.
Direct use values can be derived from the actual price paid for an ecosystem service, for example, timber. Economic valuation is thus often quite simply based on adding up the many services that have direct-use and market prices (timber, food, fuel wood, fishing etc.). In addition to commercial value, direct use can also involve non-commercial activities, such as subsistence livelihoods.
Indirect use values are related to regulating and supporting ecosystem services, such as of water cycling, nutrient cycling, filtration of pollutants, pollination, etc. They include “indirect benefits derived from ecosystem services related to the maintenance and protection of natural and human systems1”, such as the maintenance of water quality and flow, the maintenance of forest biodiversity, recreation, aesthetic appreciation and spiritual values.
Option value is the value individuals place on retaining the possibility of benefiting from ecosystems in the future. This includes ecosystem services that appear to have a low value now, but could have a much higher value in the future, possibly because of new information or knowledge. It could include the value of retaining biodiversity to keep open the future possibility of identifying medicinal plants for pharmaceutical uses, for instance.
Non-use values can be subdivided into existence values and bequest values.
Existence values refer to individuals’ willingness to pay to ensure the continued existence of a given ecosystem. It is the value that people derive from the fact that a certain forest or watershed exists, even if they do not use it directly.
Bequest value is the value derived from the desire to pass on the ecosystem intact to future generations, leaving them the option to use the ecosystem in accordance with their own preferences.
With the aim of calculating the total economic value of ecosystem services, information is collected on individuals’ preferences as seen in their market transactions relating directly to the ecosystem service (the direct market valuation approach). If such information is not available, price information can be derived from other market transactions indirectly associated with the service, or goods, to be valued (the revealed preference approach). Where either direct or indirect price information is not available, hypothetical markets can be created to elicit values (the stated preference approach). Below is a brief synthesis of these different approaches which are presented more fully in the Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB) initiative2.
1 UNECE 2007, p. 262 More information on the different approaches, their application and their limitations can be found in the TEEB report “Ecological and
Economic Foundations” Chapter 5 “The Economics of Valuing Ecosystem Services and Biodiversity.” TEEB also presents examples of the application of the different valuation approaches to forests and wetlands (Table 5.7, pp. 207-208, Table 5.8 pp. 210-211, “Matrix Table for Wetland and Forest Ecosystems” (Annex Table A21a)) and an overview of the monetary value of ecosystems, e.g. by coastal and inland wetlands (pp. 380, 382), lakes and rivers (p. 384), temperate and boreal forests (p. 388) and woodlands (p. 391).
53Annex
Direct market valuation approaches comprise the following:
Market price-based approaches, which are often used in the case of provision-ing services such as of timber or water.
Cost-based approaches, which are essentially an estimation of the costs that would be incurred if ecosystem service benefits needed to be substituted through artificial means. This could comprise the avoided cost method (the cost that would have been incurred in the absence of the ecosystem service, for instance, the value of a flood control service is derived from the estimated damage if flooding did occur); the replacement cost method (the cost incurred in replacing the ecosystem service with artificial technologies, for instance, es-timating the value of groundwater recharge from the cost of obtaining water from an alternative source); and, the mitigation or restoration cost method (the cost of mitigating the effects of the loss of ecosystem services, for instance, the cost of installing flood defences in the absence of wetland areas, which would have acted as flood-water receptors).
Production function-based approaches, which estimate how much a given ecosystem contributes to the delivery of another commodity or service traded on an existing market, for instance, trees in agro-forestry systems act as wind-breaks, resulting in raised crop productivity.
Revealed preference approaches are based on the observation of the choices of individuals in existing markets that are related to the ecosystem service that is the subject of the valuation. These comprise the following two methods:
Travel cost method (TC), based on the logic that recreational experiences are associated with a cost (the direct expenses and the opportunity cost3).This is mostly relevant for determining recreational values related to biodiversity and ecosystem services.
Hedonic pricing (HP) approach, which uses information on what individuals’ are willing to pay for an environmental attribute. For instance, the higher cost of property in scenic, forested landscapes can be a proxy for assessing the benefits of a certain recreation area. The value of a change in biodiversity or ecosys-tem-based quality or service, such as clean air or aesthetic views is reflected in the change of the price (value) of the property.
When undertaking revealed preference valuation studies, it is important to assess whether surrogate markets exist, before deciding which of the two methods should be used. Revealed preference approaches need quality data on transactions since market imperfections and policy failures can distort the estimated monetary value. Revealed preference approaches therefore tend to be expensive and time-consuming.
3 Opportunity cost here is what the individual would have been doing with the time, if not traveling.
The Value of Forests54
Stated preference valuation approaches, also referred to as “simulated valuation” simulate a market and the demand for ecosystem services through surveys of hypothetical changes in the provision of the ecosystem service. The three main techniques are:
Contingent valuation, which uses questionnaires to ask people how much they would be willing to pay to increase or enhance the provision of the ecosystem service, or inversely, how much they would be willing to accept in compen-sation for its loss or degradation. The approach, using either an individual`s willingness to pay (WTP) or an individuals willingness-to-accept (WTA), can use a range of survey formats to generate measurable pseudo-market values for non-market resources. A questionnaire might, for example, ask respondents to state their willingness to pay towards the cost of increasing the water quality in a river or lake, to the extent that they might then be able to enjoy swimming or fishing in it.
Choice modeling, which attempts to model an individual’s decision-making process by asking them to choose between various options (choice experi-ments), to rank their preference for different things (contingent ranking) and to choose between two different things (pair comparison).
Group valuation, which combines stated preference techniques with elements from political science.
Stated preference approaches are often used to estimate non-use values. The use of hypothetical markets has raised questions with regard to the validity of estimates. Often it is also difficult for the respondents to give accurate responses, as they have not always fully thought out the issues.4
Valuation methods are usually site specific. It is important to carefully assess their costs and benefits and to take into account the fact that many of the values are proxy values, that is, valuations based upon the price of related goods or services or hypothetical situations5.
A different valuation technique, which is not based on economic analysis is multi-
criteria analysis (MCA). In cases where multiple values of ecosystem services need to be measured and compared, the use of MCA has been found to be a fruitful approach. MCA allows formal integration of multiple values, after each of them has been assigned a relative weight. Its output is a raking of preferences that serves as a basis for taking decisions amongst different options.
Multiple use of forests is an illustrative example of successful application of MCA6. This approach has the potential to be broadened to cover ecosystem services. For example, a study of the estimates of forest benefits in Mediterranean and sub-Mediterranean areas
4 See TEEB Ecological and Economic Foundations, pp. 203-205 Standing Forestry Committee ad hoc Working Group report 20086 Kangas et al. 2008; Leskinen & Kangas 2005
55Annex
(total economic value) shows that the value of wood forest products, such as timber, accounts for only a small portion of the total forest benefits and that other benefits such as watershed protection are much more important. Recreation is also an important value in the northern Mediterranean.7
In each context, the basis for the remuneration for the ecosystem service will need to be assessed, with the choice of the most suitable method but also taking account of the economic and socio-economic preferences and conditions of the targeted buyers of the ecosystem services. Affordability considerations should be kept in mind in particular since ecosystem services are often to be conserved and enhanced in rural, often poorer areas. In some cases, there may not be the need to resort to complex valuation methods. The cost of forest management to maintain a certain ecosystem service could, for example, be a proxy for the remuneration to the forest owner. It will, however, in most cases be difficult to differentiate the cost associated with each service from the expenses incurred by forest management more generally.
The integration of biodiversity and ecosystem values into economic system and national accounting frameworks (as stipulated by TEEB) are challenging projects, which some governments have started to embark on. Developing an understanding as well as definitions and measures of integrated land use management and planning is an important first step in applying PES across the landscape, covering different ecosystems.
7 TEEB Ecological and Economic Foundations, pp. 389-390
The Value of Forests56
UN
EC
E
cou
ntr
y/
reg
ion
Na
me
of
PE
ST
yp
e
of
PE
S
sch
em
e:
Co
mp
en
sate
d/
imp
rov
ed
eco
syst
em
se
rvic
es
or
en
vir
on
me
nta
l
va
lue
s
Go
ve
rna
nce
stru
ctu
re
Co
mp
en
sati
on
me
an
s
Re
fere
nce
Alb
an
iaA
ssis
ted
Nat
ural
Re
gene
ratio
n pr
ojec
tPF
S/BD
affor
esta
tion
and
refo
rest
atio
n of
de
grad
ed la
nd
M, H
, Cm
ww
w.c
dm.u
nfcc
c.in
t; Ex
ampl
e 9
in
this
repo
rt
Au
stri
aAu
stria
n Ag
ri-en
viro
nmen
tal p
rogr
am
ÖPU
L
PWS
agri-
envi
ronm
enta
l qu
ality
, w
ater
shed
, ag
ricul
ture
HPa
ymen
ts fo
r en
viro
nmen
tal
frie
ndly
pr
actic
es
UN
ECE
2005
;
Bu
lga
ria
,
Mo
ldo
va
,
Ro
ma
nia
,
Uk
rain
e
WW
F D
anub
e Ba
sin
seve
ral
proj
ects
biod
iver
sity
, en
viro
nmen
tal
qual
ity, m
any
wat
ersh
ed a
nd
fore
st s
ervi
ces
M, H
, Cm
seve
ral
WW
F w
eb p
ages
8 ; Ex
ampl
e 12
Bu
lga
ria
,
Ro
ma
nia
,
Uk
rain
e
Fiel
dfar
e (in
dev
elop
men
t)PF
S/BD
habi
tat c
reat
ion
Mse
lf-fin
anci
ngFi
eldf
are
web
pa
ges9
Bu
lga
ria
,
Hu
ng
ary
,
Po
lan
d
The
Biod
iver
sity
Tech
nica
l A
ssis
tanc
e U
nits
pro
gram
(B
TAU
) (in
dev
elop
men
t)
PFS/
BDse
vera
lM
busi
ness
-bi
odiv
ersi
ty
bank
ing
BTAU
web
pag
es10
An
ne
x 2
: P
ES
sch
em
es
in U
NE
CE
co
un
trie
s. O
ve
rvie
w o
f su
rve
y r
esu
lts.
57Annex
UN
EC
E
cou
ntr
y/
reg
ion
Na
me
of
PE
ST
yp
e
of
PE
S
sch
em
e:
Co
mp
en
sate
d/
imp
rov
ed
eco
syst
em
se
rvic
es
or
en
vir
on
me
nta
l
va
lue
s
Go
ve
rna
nce
stru
ctu
re
Co
mp
en
sati
on
me
an
s
Re
fere
nce
Ca
na
da
Ass
inib
oine
Riv
er
Wat
ersh
edPW
Sw
etla
nds
and
wat
erfo
wl
prot
ectio
n
M, H
bene
fits
per u
nit
cost
, via
auc
tion
OEC
D 2
010
Ca
na
da
(On
tari
o)
Sout
h N
atio
n Ri
ver
Phos
poro
us M
anag
emen
t pr
ogra
m
WQ
TPph
ospo
rous
M, H
Stan
ton
et a
l. 20
10
Ca
na
da
Nat
iona
l Fis
h H
abita
t Co
mpe
nsat
ion
HA
DD
PFS/
BDfis
hM
, HM
adse
n et
al.
2010
Ca
na
da
Wet
land
Com
pens
atio
n Ag
reem
ent B
etw
een
Man
itoba
's In
fras
truc
ture
an
d Tr
ansp
orta
tion
Agen
cy
and
Man
itoba
Hab
itat
Her
itage
Cor
pora
tion
PFS/
BDw
ater
shed
se
rvic
esM
Mad
sen
et a
l. 20
10
Ca
na
da
Prov
inci
al W
etla
nd
Com
pens
atio
n pr
ogra
m
(Alb
erta
, New
Bru
nsw
ick,
Pr
ince
Edw
ard
Isla
nd, N
ova
Scot
ia)
PFS/
BDw
ater
shed
serv
ices
M,H
Mad
sen
et a
l. 20
10
The Value of Forests58
UN
EC
E
cou
ntr
y/
reg
ion
Na
me
of
PE
ST
yp
e
of
PE
S
sch
em
e:
Co
mp
en
sate
d/
imp
rov
ed
eco
syst
em
se
rvic
es
or
en
vir
on
me
nta
l
va
lue
s
Go
ve
rna
nce
stru
ctu
re
Co
mp
en
sati
on
me
an
s
Re
fere
nce
Ca
na
da
Briti
sh C
olum
bia'
s W
etla
nds
Miti
gatio
n an
d Co
mpe
nsat
ion
Stra
tegy
(in d
evel
opm
ent)
PFS/
BDbi
odiv
ersi
ty,
wat
ersh
ed
serv
ices
-M
adse
n et
al.
2010
EU
Hab
itats
Dire
ctiv
e(b
ase
of N
atur
a200
0)PF
S/BD
biod
iver
sity
Hdi
rect
co
mpe
nsat
ion,
un
iform
pa
ymen
ts
for g
iven
m
anag
emen
t pr
actic
es
http
://ec
.eur
opa.
eu/
envi
ronm
ent/
natu
re/le
gisl
atio
n/ha
bita
tsdi
rect
ive/
inde
x_en
.htm
;ht
tp://
eur-
lex.
euro
pa.e
u/
EU
Bird
s D
irect
ive
(bas
e of
N
atur
a200
0)PF
S/BD
biod
iver
sity
Hdi
rect
co
mpe
nsat
ion,
un
iform
pa
ymen
ts
for g
iven
m
anag
emen
t pr
actic
es
http
://ec
.eur
opa.
eu/e
nviro
nmen
t/na
ture
/legi
slat
ion/
bird
sdire
ctiv
e/in
dex_
en.h
tm
59Annex
UN
EC
E
cou
ntr
y/
reg
ion
Na
me
of
PE
ST
yp
e
of
PE
S
sch
em
e:
Co
mp
en
sate
d/
imp
rov
ed
eco
syst
em
se
rvic
es
or
en
vir
on
me
nta
l
va
lue
s
Go
ve
rna
nce
stru
ctu
re
Co
mp
en
sati
on
me
an
s
Re
fere
nce
EU
Envi
ronm
enta
l Lia
bilit
y D
irect
ive
-H
http
://eu
r-le
x.eu
ropa
.eu/
EU
Hab
itat B
anki
ng(in
dev
elop
men
t)PF
S/BD
biod
iver
sity
M, H
(?)
biod
iver
sity
and
ha
bita
t ban
king
Mad
sen
et a
l. 20
10
Fin
lan
dFo
rest
Bio
dive
rsity
Pr
ogra
mm
e fo
r Sou
ther
n Fi
nlan
d M
ETSO
I an
d M
ETSO
II
PFS/
BDbi
odiv
ersi
ty
intr
insi
c va
lue,
de
adw
ood,
old
-gr
owth
car
bon
stor
ages
M,H
, Cm
auct
ion,
pa
ymen
t, di
rect
co
mpe
nsat
ion
etc.
MET
SO I
web
pa
ges11
;M
ETSO
II w
eb
page
s12; E
xam
ple
1
Fin
lan
dPr
edat
or c
ompe
nsat
ion
PFS/
BDG
olde
n ea
gle
Hdi
rect
co
mpe
nsat
ion
Fin
lan
dFi
nnis
h N
atur
al H
erita
ge
Foun
datio
nPF
S/BD
biod
iver
sity
in
trin
sic
valu
e, o
ld-
grow
th fo
rest
s, cu
ltura
l ser
vice
s
M, C
mse
lf-fin
anci
ng
with
don
atio
nsFN
HF
web
pag
es13
Fra
nce
Nes
tle –
Vitt
elPW
Sw
ater
qua
lity,
w
ater
reso
urce
sM
paym
ents
via
ne
gotia
tions
Zand
erse
n et
al.
2009
; Sta
nton
et a
l. 20
10; O
ECD
201
0;
Exam
ple
4
The Value of Forests60
UN
EC
E
cou
ntr
y/
reg
ion
Na
me
of
PE
ST
yp
e
of
PE
S
sch
em
e:
Co
mp
en
sate
d/
imp
rov
ed
eco
syst
em
se
rvic
es
or
en
vir
on
me
nta
l
va
lue
s
Go
ve
rna
nce
stru
ctu
re
Co
mp
en
sati
on
me
an
s
Re
fere
nce
Fra
nce
Dan
one
– Ev
ian
PWS
wat
er q
ualit
y,
wat
er re
sour
ces,
wat
ersh
ed
serv
ices
Mpa
ymen
ts v
ia
nego
tiatio
nsEv
ian
web
pag
es14
; St
anto
n et
al.
2010
Fra
nce
Fren
ch B
iodi
vers
ity
Bank
ing
- CD
C Bi
odiv
ersi
té
(in d
evel
opm
ent)
PFS/
BDbi
odiv
ersi
tyM
biod
iver
sity
ba
nkin
gM
adse
n et
al.
2010
Ge
org
iaSa
meg
relo
Haz
elnu
t aff
ores
tatio
nPF
S/BD
, PW
Sso
il, la
nd
and
wat
er
enha
ncem
ent
via
carb
on
sequ
estr
atio
n
Mtr
adin
g sc
hem
ew
ww
.car
bonfi
x.in
fo/H
AP;
Exa
mpl
e 8
Ge
rma
ny
Ger
man
y's
Impa
ct
Miti
gatio
n Re
gula
tions
(E
ingr
iffsr
egel
ung)
PFS/
BDH
seve
ral
Mad
sen
et a
l. 20
10
Ge
rma
ny
Nor
th R
hine
-Wet
phal
ia
Pilo
t Ten
der
PFS/
BDgr
assl
and
cons
erva
tion
Mpa
ymen
ts p
er
unit
area
cos
t, vi
a au
ctio
n
OEC
D 2
010
61Annex
UN
EC
E
cou
ntr
y/
reg
ion
Na
me
of
PE
ST
yp
e
of
PE
S
sch
em
e:
Co
mp
en
sate
d/
imp
rov
ed
eco
syst
em
se
rvic
es
or
en
vir
on
me
nta
l
va
lue
s
Go
ve
rna
nce
stru
ctu
re
Co
mp
en
sati
on
me
an
s
Re
fere
nce
Ge
rma
ny
Low
er S
axon
y (N
iede
rsac
hsen
, OO
WV
)PW
Sw
ater
&
wat
ersh
eds
H, (
M)
paym
ents
of
com
pens
atio
n,
paym
ents
on
vol
unta
ry
agre
emen
ts,
land
for
affor
esta
tion
IUCN
200
9
Ge
rma
ny
Bion
ade
Gm
bH/
Trin
kwas
serw
ald
NG
OPW
Sw
ater
qua
lity
via
fore
st h
abita
t co
nser
vatio
n
Mpr
ivat
e in
com
e fr
om s
old
wat
erEx
ampl
e 6;
IUCN
20
09
Ge
rma
ny
Kauf
erin
gPW
Sgr
ound
w
ater
qua
lity,
de
crea
sing
ni
trat
es b
y in
crea
sing
de
cidu
ous
fore
sts
H, M
paym
ents
(in
cent
ives
) for
go
od fo
rest
m
anag
emen
t pr
actic
es
IUCN
200
9
Gre
ece
Am
fissa
PFS/
BDla
ndsc
ape
qual
ityM
, Hun
iform
pa
ymen
t fo
r giv
en
man
agem
ent
prac
tices
, per
un
it ar
ea
OEC
D 2
010;
UN
ECE
2005
The Value of Forests62
UN
EC
E
cou
ntr
y/
reg
ion
Na
me
of
PE
ST
yp
e
of
PE
S
sch
em
e:
Co
mp
en
sate
d/
imp
rov
ed
eco
syst
em
se
rvic
es
or
en
vir
on
me
nta
l
va
lue
s
Go
ve
rna
nce
stru
ctu
re
Co
mp
en
sati
on
me
an
s
Re
fere
nce
Ita
lyCo
mpe
nsat
ing
the
land
owne
rs in
(Alp
ine)
ca
tchm
ents
use
for h
ydro
-po
wer
pro
duct
ion
PWS
com
pens
atin
g w
ater
shed
se
rvic
es o
f hy
drop
ower
pr
oduc
tion
H, M
com
pens
atio
n fo
r lan
dow
ners
http
://w
ww
.fe
derb
im.it
/
Ita
lyN
atio
nal L
aw o
n W
ater
re
gula
tion
PWS
drin
king
wat
erH
com
pens
atio
n fo
r mai
nten
ance
an
d go
od la
nd-
use
prac
tices
Mad
sen
et a
l. 20
10
Ita
lyRo
mag
na A
cque
Age
ncy
(cas
e)PW
Spr
omot
ing
soun
d fo
rest
m
anag
emen
t fo
r wat
ersh
ed
serv
ices
M(?
)ht
tp://
ww
w.
rom
agna
cque
.it/
font
i_id
riche
_rid
raco
li-d-
78.h
tml
Ire
lan
dN
eigh
bour
Woo
d Sc
hem
ePF
S/BD
recr
eatio
nH
, Cm
SFC
ad h
oc W
G
2008
; thi
s re
port
pa
ge 1
4
Ky
rgy
zsta
nLa
ke Is
syk-
Kul
PWS,
PF
S/BD
wat
er q
ualit
y,
seve
ral f
ores
t se
rvic
es
M, C
mpa
ymen
ts,
seve
ral
ww
w.u
nece
.org
; th
is re
port
pag
e 21
63Annex
UN
EC
E
cou
ntr
y/
reg
ion
Na
me
of
PE
ST
yp
e
of
PE
S
sch
em
e:
Co
mp
en
sate
d/
imp
rov
ed
eco
syst
em
se
rvic
es
or
en
vir
on
me
nta
l
va
lue
s
Go
ve
rna
nce
stru
ctu
re
Co
mp
en
sati
on
me
an
s
Re
fere
nce
La
tvia
Gam
e w
atch
ing
trai
lsPF
S/BD
faun
a, fl
ora,
es
peci
ally
gam
eM
entr
ance
fees
SFC
ad h
oc W
G
2008
; thi
s re
port
pa
ge 1
4
Mo
ldo
va
Soil
Cons
erva
tion
Proj
ect
PFS/
BDse
vera
l for
est
serv
ices
via
aff
ores
tatio
n/re
fore
stat
io,
carb
on
sequ
estr
atio
n
M, H
, Cm
trad
ing
sche
me,
CD
Mw
ww
.cdm
.unf
ccc.
int;
Exam
ple
7
Ne
the
rla
nd
sIn
tegr
ated
Wat
er R
esou
rce
Man
agem
ent
PWS
wat
ersh
ed
serv
ices
HU
NEC
E 20
05
Ne
the
rla
nd
sLa
ndsc
ape
Fund
PFS/
BDfo
rest
ser
vice
sH
, Cm
subs
idie
sU
NEC
E 20
05
Ne
the
rla
nd
sFa
rmin
g fo
r Nat
ure
Pilo
t pr
ogra
mW
QTP
wat
er q
ualit
yM
, Cm
(?)
Stan
ton
et a
l. 20
10;
FNP
prog
ram
e's
web
pag
es15
Ne
the
rla
nd
sEc
olog
ical
Com
pens
atio
n in
Dut
ch H
ighw
ay P
lann
ing
PFS/
BDbi
odiv
ersi
tyM
com
pens
ator
y co
nser
vatio
n el
sew
here
Cupe
rus
et a
l. 20
01
The Value of Forests64
UN
EC
E
cou
ntr
y/
reg
ion
Na
me
of
PE
ST
yp
e
of
PE
S
sch
em
e:
Co
mp
en
sate
d/
imp
rov
ed
eco
syst
em
se
rvic
es
or
en
vir
on
me
nta
l
va
lue
s
Go
ve
rna
nce
stru
ctu
re
Co
mp
en
sati
on
me
an
s
Re
fere
nce
Ne
the
rla
nd
sFr
iend
s of
the
Land
scap
e (in
dev
elop
men
t)PF
S/BD
land
scap
eM
, Cm
Mad
sen
et a
l. 20
10
Ne
the
rla
nd
sW
adde
n Se
a Fu
nd(in
dev
elop
men
t)PF
S/BD
recr
eatio
n, w
ater
qu
ality
Mad
sen
et a
l. 20
10
No
rwa
yCo
mpe
nsat
ion
for
cons
erva
tion
of fo
rest
ryPF
S/BD
fore
st s
ervi
ces,
biod
iver
sity
H, C
m (?
)co
mpe
nsat
ion
for v
olun
tary
fo
rest
co
nser
vatio
n
Tem
aNor
d 20
09:5
71,
Nor
dic
Coun
cil
of M
inis
ters
, Co
penh
agen
.
Po
lan
dPo
lish
Nat
iona
l Fun
d fo
r En
viro
nmen
t Pro
tect
ion
& W
ater
Man
agem
ent
(NFO
SIG
W)
(in d
evel
opm
ent)
PFS/
BDw
ater
, sev
eral
se
rvic
esM
, Cm
(?)
NFO
SIG
W w
eb
page
s16;
UN
ECE
2005
Po
lan
dTh
e N
atio
nal E
cofu
nd(in
dev
elop
men
t)PF
S/BD
M, C
m (?
)Th
e N
atio
nal
Ecof
und'
s w
eb
page
s17
65Annex
UN
EC
E
cou
ntr
y/
reg
ion
Na
me
of
PE
ST
yp
e
of
PE
S
sch
em
e:
Co
mp
en
sate
d/
imp
rov
ed
eco
syst
em
se
rvic
es
or
en
vir
on
me
nta
l
va
lue
s
Go
ve
rna
nce
stru
ctu
re
Co
mp
en
sati
on
me
an
s
Re
fere
nce
Sp
ain
Gua
dian
a riv
er b
asin
(S
PUG
)PW
Sw
ater
qua
ntity
aff
ecte
d by
irr
igat
ion,
i.e.
re
char
ging
ov
erex
ploi
ted
aqui
fers
by
2027
, re
stor
atio
n of
bi
odiv
ersi
ty,
enha
ncin
g to
ursi
m
Hsu
ppor
ting
refo
rest
atio
nIU
CN 2
009
Sw
ed
en
Kom
et p
rogr
amPF
S/BD
biod
iver
sity
in
trin
sic
valu
e,
dead
woo
d, o
ld-
grow
th c
arbo
n st
orag
es
M,H
, Cm
auct
ion,
pa
ymen
t, di
rect
co
mpe
nsat
ion
etc.
Kom
et's
web
pa
ges18
; Exa
mpl
e 2
Sw
ed
en
Nor
dic
Shel
l Hol
ding
sPW
Sw
ater
qua
lity
Hun
iform
pa
ymen
ts
per w
eigh
t of
pol
luta
nts
filte
red
OEC
D 2
010
The Value of Forests66
UN
EC
E
cou
ntr
y/
reg
ion
Na
me
of
PE
ST
yp
e
of
PE
S
sch
em
e:
Co
mp
en
sate
d/
imp
rov
ed
eco
syst
em
se
rvic
es
or
en
vir
on
me
nta
l
va
lue
s
Go
ve
rna
nce
stru
ctu
re
Co
mp
en
sati
on
me
an
s
Re
fere
nce
Sw
ed
en
Envi
ronm
enta
l Offs
ets
infr
eque
ntly
m
anda
tory
Mad
sen
et a
l 201
0
Sw
ed
en
Pred
ator
com
pens
atio
nPF
S/BD
wol
verin
e, G
olde
n ea
gle
Hdi
rect
co
mpe
nsat
ion
Zabe
l & H
olm
-M
ülle
r 200
8
Sw
itze
rla
nd
Ord
inan
ce o
n th
e Re
gion
al
prom
otio
n of
Qua
lity
and
Inte
rlink
ing
of th
e Ec
olog
ical
Com
pens
atio
n A
reas
PWS
agri-
envi
ronm
enta
l qu
ality
, nitr
ate
decr
ease
M, H
unifo
rm
paym
ents
fo
r giv
en
man
agem
ent
prac
tices
(zon
al
sche
mes
)
OEC
D 2
010;
UN
ECE
2005
, 200
7
Sw
itze
rla
nd
Cant
on B
asel
-Sta
dtPW
Sw
ater
qua
lity,
fil
trat
ion
Had
ditio
nal
char
ge in
wat
er
bill
ww
w.w
aldw
isse
n.ne
t; Ex
ampl
e 3
Sw
itze
rla
nd
Hen
niez
SA
PWS
wat
er q
ualit
y vi
a fo
rest
co
nser
vatio
n an
d de
crea
sed
nitr
ate
inpu
t
Mpr
ivat
e in
com
e fr
om s
old
wat
erw
ww
.wal
dwis
sen.
net;
Exam
ple
5
67Annex
UN
EC
E
cou
ntr
y/
reg
ion
Na
me
of
PE
ST
yp
e
of
PE
S
sch
em
e:
Co
mp
en
sate
d/
imp
rov
ed
eco
syst
em
se
rvic
es
or
en
vir
on
me
nta
l
va
lue
s
Go
ve
rna
nce
stru
ctu
re
Co
mp
en
sati
on
me
an
s
Re
fere
nce
Un
ite
d
Kin
gd
om
of
Gre
at
Bri
tain
an
d
No
rth
ern
Ire
lan
d
Spec
ies
Bank
ing
PFS/
BDbi
odiv
ersi
tyM
Mad
sen
et a
l. 20
10
Un
ite
d
Kin
gd
om
of
Gre
at
Bri
tain
an
d
No
rth
ern
Ire
lan
d
Rura
l Dev
elop
men
t Pr
ogra
mm
ePW
Sag
ri-en
viro
nmen
tal
qual
ity
M, H
unifo
rm
paym
ents
fo
r giv
en
man
agem
ent
prac
tices
OEC
D 2
010
Un
ite
d
Kin
gd
om
of
Gre
at
Bri
tain
an
d
No
rth
ern
Ire
lan
d
Tir G
ofal
(Wal
es)
PWS
agri-
envi
ronm
enta
l qu
ality
M, H
unifo
rm
paym
ents
fo
r giv
en
man
agem
ent
prac
tices
OEC
D 2
010
The Value of Forests68
UN
EC
E
cou
ntr
y/
reg
ion
Na
me
of
PE
ST
yp
e
of
PE
S
sch
em
e:
Co
mp
en
sate
d/
imp
rov
ed
eco
syst
em
se
rvic
es
or
en
vir
on
me
nta
l
va
lue
s
Go
ve
rna
nce
stru
ctu
re
Co
mp
en
sati
on
me
an
s
Re
fere
nce
Un
ite
d
Kin
gd
om
of
Gre
at
Bri
tain
an
d
No
rth
ern
Ire
lan
d
Scot
tish
Chal
leng
e Fu
nd
(Sco
tland
)PF
S/BD
fore
st se
rvic
es a
nd
cons
erva
tion
M, C
men
viro
nmen
tal
bene
fits
inde
x pe
r uni
t cos
t, vi
a au
ctio
n
OEC
D 2
010
Un
ite
d
Kin
gd
om
of
Gre
at
Bri
tain
an
d
No
rth
ern
Ire
lan
d
Nor
th Ir
elan
d - C
ount
rysi
de
Man
agem
ent S
chem
e (N
ICM
S)
PWS
agri-
envi
ronm
enta
l qu
ality
, bi
odiv
ersi
ty, w
ater
qu
ality
, miti
gate
cl
imat
e ch
ange
, im
prov
e so
il qu
ality
, enh
ance
la
ndsc
ape
M, H
paym
ents
for
enha
ncem
ents
an
d m
anag
emen
t pr
actic
es
Stan
ton
et a
l. 20
10
Un
ite
d
Kin
gd
om
of
Gre
at
Bri
tain
an
d
No
rth
ern
Ire
lan
d
UK
Biod
iver
sity
Offs
ets
(in d
evel
opm
ent)
PFS/
BDbi
odiv
ersi
tyM
, HM
adse
n et
al.
2010
69Annex
UN
EC
E
cou
ntr
y/
reg
ion
Na
me
of
PE
ST
yp
e
of
PE
S
sch
em
e:
Co
mp
en
sate
d/
imp
rov
ed
eco
syst
em
se
rvic
es
or
en
vir
on
me
nta
l
va
lue
s
Go
ve
rna
nce
stru
ctu
re
Co
mp
en
sati
on
me
an
s
Re
fere
nce
Un
ite
d
Kin
gd
om
of
Gre
at
Bri
tain
an
d
No
rth
ern
Ire
lan
d
Un
ite
d
Kin
gd
om
of
Gre
at
Bri
tain
an
d
No
rth
ern
Ire
lan
d
‘Slo
win
g th
e Fl
ow’,
Pick
erin
g, N
orth
Yor
kshi
rePW
SFl
ood
prot
ectio
n,
carb
on
sequ
estr
atio
n
Hht
tp://
ww
w.
fore
stry
.gov
.uk/
fr/
INFD
-7ZV
EQV
Un
ite
d
Kin
gd
om
of
Gre
at
Bri
tain
an
d
No
rth
ern
Ire
lan
d
Was
te to
Woo
dlan
ds,
Lanc
ashi
rePF
S/BD
Carb
on
sequ
estr
atio
nH
Paym
ents
for
was
te tr
eatm
ent
and
woo
dlan
d pl
antin
g
http
://w
ww
.gl
obal
rene
wab
les.
co.u
k/co
nten
t/co
nten
tPag
e.as
p?co
nten
tID=
89&
coun
tyl
D=1
&pg
ID=1
The Value of Forests70
UN
EC
E
cou
ntr
y/
reg
ion
Na
me
of
PE
ST
yp
e
of
PE
S
sch
em
e:
Co
mp
en
sate
d/
imp
rov
ed
eco
syst
em
se
rvic
es
or
en
vir
on
me
nta
l
va
lue
s
Go
ve
rna
nce
stru
ctu
re
Co
mp
en
sati
on
me
an
s
Re
fere
nce
Un
ite
d
Kin
gd
om
of
Gre
at
Bri
tain
an
d
No
rth
ern
Ire
lan
d
Wes
t Cou
ntry
Riv
ers T
rust
, So
uthw
est E
ngla
ndPW
S,
PFS/
BDFl
ood
prot
ectio
n,
wat
er p
urifi
catio
n,
drou
ght
man
agem
ent,
carb
on
sequ
estr
atio
n,
biod
iver
sity
co
rrid
ors,
recr
eatio
n
M, H
http
://w
ww
.w
rt.o
rg.u
k/la
nd.h
tml
Un
ite
d
Kin
gd
om
of
Gre
at
Bri
tain
an
d
No
rth
ern
Ire
lan
d
Woo
dlan
d Ca
rbon
Cod
ePF
S/BD
Carb
on
sequ
estr
atio
nM
Stan
dard
s in
vol
unta
ry
mar
ket f
or fo
rest
ca
rbon
ww
w.fo
rest
ry.g
ov.
uk/c
arbo
ncod
e
Un
ite
d S
tate
sTh
e Ca
tski
lls/ D
elaw
are
Wat
ersh
ed P
rote
ctio
n pr
ogra
mm
e (N
ew Y
ork)
PWS
wat
er q
ualit
y,
wat
ersh
ed
serv
ices
M, H
, Cm
taxa
tion
App
leto
n 20
02;
Pagi
ola
et a
l. 20
04;
Stan
ton
et a
l. 20
10;
FAO
201
0 w
eb
page
s; E
xam
ple
71Annex
UN
EC
E
cou
ntr
y/
reg
ion
Na
me
of
PE
ST
yp
e
of
PE
S
sch
em
e:
Co
mp
en
sate
d/
imp
rov
ed
eco
syst
em
se
rvic
es
or
en
vir
on
me
nta
l
va
lue
s
Go
ve
rna
nce
stru
ctu
re
Co
mp
en
sati
on
me
an
s
Re
fere
nce
Un
ite
d S
tate
sTh
e Co
nser
vatio
n Re
serv
e Pr
ogra
mm
ePF
S/BD
and
PW
S
agri-
envi
ronm
enta
l qu
ality
, BD
, ca
rbon
, wat
er
qual
ity
Hco
st fa
ctor
in
clud
ed in
en
viro
nmen
tal
bene
fits
inde
x,
via
auct
ion
CRP
web
pag
e19;
OEC
D 2
010
Un
ite
d S
tate
sU
S Co
nser
vatio
n Ba
nkin
gPF
S/BD
biod
iver
sity
, fo
rest
sM
paym
ents
for
spec
ies
bank
ing
CB w
eb p
age20
; Ex
ampl
e 11
Un
ite
d S
tate
sTh
e W
etla
nds
Rese
rve
Prog
ram
(Com
pens
ator
y w
etla
nd m
itiga
tion)
PFS/
BD a
nd
PWS
hydr
olog
ical
se
rvic
esH
to s
ome
exte
nt
enro
lmen
t on
case
by
case
ba
sis
OEC
D 2
010
Un
ite
d S
tate
sRe
cove
ry C
redi
t Sys
tem
PFS/
BDM
, HM
adse
n et
al.
2010
Un
ite
d S
tate
sBu
reau
of L
and
Man
agem
ent M
itiga
tion
Polic
y
PFS/
BDH
Mad
sen
et a
l. 20
10
Un
ite
d S
tate
sM
aryl
and'
s fo
rest
offs
et la
wPF
S/BD
HM
adse
n et
al.
2010
Un
ite
d S
tate
sN
orth
Car
olin
a's
Buffe
r M
itiga
tion
prog
ram
PFS/
BDH
Mad
sen
et a
l. 20
10
The Value of Forests72
UN
EC
E
cou
ntr
y/
reg
ion
Na
me
of
PE
ST
yp
e
of
PE
S
sch
em
e:
Co
mp
en
sate
d/
imp
rov
ed
eco
syst
em
se
rvic
es
or
en
vir
on
me
nta
l
va
lue
s
Go
ve
rna
nce
stru
ctu
re
Co
mp
en
sati
on
me
an
s
Re
fere
nce
Un
ite
d S
tate
sAc
res
for A
mer
ica
PFS/
BDM
Mad
sen
et a
l. 20
10
Un
ite
d S
tate
sCh
esap
eake
Bay
Fun
dPW
Sw
ater
, wat
ersh
ed
serv
ices
M, H
, Cm
cap-
and-
trad
e w
ater
sch
eme
Stan
ton
et a
l. 20
10; E
cosy
stem
M
arke
tpla
ce w
eb
page
21; E
xam
ple
10
Un
ite
d S
tate
sQ
uabb
in a
nd
Wac
huse
tt W
ater
shed
s (M
assa
schu
sets
)
PWS
wat
er, w
ater
shed
se
rvic
esM
, HSt
anto
n et
al.
2010
Un
ite
d S
tate
sCe
dar R
iver
(Was
hing
ton)
PWS
wat
er, w
ater
shed
se
rvic
esM
, HSt
anto
n et
al.
2010
Un
ite
d S
tate
sH
etch
Het
chy
(Cal
iforn
ia)
PWS
wat
er, w
ater
shed
se
rvic
esM
, HSt
anto
n et
al.
2010
Un
ite
d S
tate
sAg
ricul
tura
l Man
agem
ent
Ass
ista
nce
Prog
ram
(AM
A)
PWS
wat
er, w
ater
shed
se
rvic
esM
, HSt
anto
n et
al.
2010
Un
ite
d S
tate
sTh
e En
viro
nmen
tal Q
ualit
y In
cent
ives
Pro
gram
(EQ
UIP
)PW
Sw
ater
, wat
ersh
ed
serv
ices
, agr
i-en
viro
nmen
tal
qual
ity
M, H
to s
ome
exte
nt
enro
lmen
t on
case
by
case
ba
sis
Stan
ton
et a
l. 20
10;
OEC
D 2
010
73Annex
UN
EC
E
cou
ntr
y/
reg
ion
Na
me
of
PE
ST
yp
e
of
PE
S
sch
em
e:
Co
mp
en
sate
d/
imp
rov
ed
eco
syst
em
se
rvic
es
or
en
vir
on
me
nta
l
va
lue
s
Go
ve
rna
nce
stru
ctu
re
Co
mp
en
sati
on
me
an
s
Re
fere
nce
Un
ite
d S
tate
sCo
nser
vatio
n St
ewar
dshi
p Pr
ogra
m (C
SP) [
earli
er
Cons
erva
tion
Secu
rity
Prog
ram
]
PWS
wat
er, w
ater
shed
se
rvic
es, a
gri-
envi
ronm
enta
l qu
ality
Hto
som
e ex
tent
en
rolm
ent o
n ca
se b
y ca
se b
asis
Stan
ton
et a
l. 20
10;
OEC
D 2
010
Un
ite
d S
tate
sEP
A's
319
Prog
ram
PWS
wat
er, w
ater
shed
se
rvic
esM
, Hsu
bsid
y pa
ymen
ts o
r gr
ants
Stan
ton
et a
l. 20
10
Un
ite
d S
tate
sW
ater
Qua
lity
Trad
ing
Prog
ram
es (1
1*)
WQ
TPph
osph
orou
s, ni
trog
en, w
ater
te
mpe
ratu
re
M, H
Stan
ton
et a
l. 20
10
Un
ite
d S
tate
sH
abita
t Cre
dit T
radi
ng
Sche
me
(in d
evel
opm
ent)
PFS/
BDM
Mad
sen
et a
l. 20
10
Un
ite
d S
tate
sW
illia
met
te P
artn
ersh
ip's
Ecos
yste
m M
arke
tpla
ce (i
n de
velo
pmen
t)
PFS/
BDM
Mad
sen
et a
l. 20
10
Un
ite
d S
tate
sBa
y Ba
nk (i
n de
velo
pmen
t)PF
S/BD
MM
adse
n et
al.
2010
Abb
revi
atio
ns in
the
“Typ
e of
PES
sch
eme”
col
umn
are:
PFS
/BD
, pay
men
ts fo
r for
est s
ervi
ces
and/
or b
iodi
vers
ity;
PWS,
pay
men
ts fo
r wat
ersh
ed s
ervi
ces;
and
WQ
TP, w
ater
qua
lity
trad
ing
prog
ram
. A
bbre
viat
ion
in th
e “G
over
nanc
e st
ruct
ure”
col
umn
are:
M, m
arke
t (re
ferr
ing
mai
nly
to p
rivat
e sc
hem
es);
H, h
iera
rcy
that
is to
say
pub
lic a
dmin
istr
atio
n (r
efer
ring
mai
nly
to p
ublic
sch
emes
); an
d Cm
, com
mun
ity m
anag
emen
t. C
omm
unity
man
agem
ent i
s in
terp
rete
d he
re to
incl
ude
also
act
ions
of N
GO
s, al
thou
gh th
is is
not
exa
ctly
the
sam
e as
for c
omm
on o
wne
rshi
p of
fore
sts,
for i
nsta
nce.
Th
e PE
S sc
hem
es p
rese
nted
may
hav
e ch
arac
teris
tics
of s
ever
al g
over
nanc
e ty
pes,
but t
hese
are
not
nec
essa
rily
incl
uded
in th
e ta
ble.
Th
e co
lum
n on
“Com
pens
atio
n m
eans
” inc
lude
s: d
irect
com
pens
atio
n, p
aym
ent,
auct
ion,
taxa
tion,
sub
sidy
, com
plia
nce-
rela
ted,
com
mun
ity fu
nd, s
elf-fi
nanc
ing
etc.
The Value of Forests74
8W
WF
web
pag
es, A
vaila
ble
at: h
ttp:
//w
wf.p
anda
.org
/wha
t_w
e_do
/whe
re_w
e_w
ork/
blac
k_se
a_ba
sin/
danu
be_c
arpa
thia
n/ne
ws/
?193
440/
Prom
otin
g-Pa
ymen
ts-fo
r-Ec
osys
tem
-Ser
vice
s-in
-the
-D
anub
e-Ba
sin
9Fi
eldf
are
web
pag
es, A
vaila
ble
at: h
ttp:
//w
ww
.fiel
dfar
e.bi
z/
10
The
BTAU
pro
ject
is a
n RS
PB, E
urop
ean
Cent
re fo
r Nat
ure
Cons
erva
tion,
and
Bird
Life
Inte
rnat
iona
l con
sort
ium
pro
ject
whi
ch s
eeks
to c
reat
e ‘P
ro-B
iodi
vers
ity’ B
usin
esse
s (P
BBs)
thro
ugh
dedi
cate
d Bi
odiv
ersi
ty Te
chni
cal A
ssits
tanc
e U
nits
, one
in e
ach
of th
e fo
llow
ing
coun
trie
s: B
ulga
ria, H
unga
ry a
nd P
olan
d. B
TAU
web
pag
es, A
vaila
ble
at: h
ttp:
//w
ww
.sm
efor
biod
iver
sity
.eu/
deta
ils.p
hp?p
_id
=70&
id=7
5 11
MET
SO I
web
pag
es, A
vaila
ble
at: h
ttp:
//w
ww
b.m
mm
.fi/m
etso
/inte
rnat
iona
l/ 12
MET
SO II
web
pag
es, A
vaila
ble
at: h
ttp:
//w
ww
.met
sonp
olku
.fi
13Fi
nnis
h N
atur
al H
erita
ge F
ound
atio
n w
eb p
ages
, Ava
ilabl
e at
: htt
p://
ww
w.lu
onno
nper
into
saat
io.fi
/eng
lish/
inde
x 14
Evia
n w
eb p
ages
, Ava
ilabl
e at
: htt
p://
ww
w.e
vian
-wat
erin
stitu
tes.c
om/h
tml/_
com
/env
ironn
emen
t/en
viro
nnem
ent0
2.ph
p 15
Farm
ing
for N
atur
e Pi
lot p
rogr
am w
eb p
ages
, Ava
ilabl
e at
: ww
w.b
oere
nvoo
rnat
uur.n
l 16
NFO
SIG
W’s
web
pag
es, A
vaila
ble
at: w
ww
.nfo
sigw
.gov
.pl
17Th
e N
atio
nal E
cofu
nd w
eb p
ages
, Ava
ilabl
e at
: ww
w.e
kofu
ndus
z.or
g.pl
/us/
ecoa
ct.h
tm
18Ko
met
pro
gram
web
pag
es, A
vaila
ble
at: h
ttp:
//w
ww
.nat
urva
rdsv
erke
t.se/
sv/A
rbet
e-m
ed-n
atur
vard
/Inte
rnat
ione
lla-s
kogs
aret
-201
1/Ko
met
prog
ram
met
/ 19
The
Cons
erva
tion
Rese
arch
Pro
gram
mes
web
pag
es, A
vaila
ble
at: h
ttp:
//w
ww
.fsa.
usda
.gov
/FSA
/web
app?
area
=hom
e&su
bjec
t=co
pr&
topi
c=cr
p 20
Cons
erva
tion
Bank
ing
web
pag
es, A
vaila
ble
at: h
ttp:
//w
ww
.fws.g
ov/s
acra
men
to/e
s/co
ns_b
ank.
htm
21
Ecos
yste
m M
arke
tpla
ce’s
web
pag
es, A
vaila
ble
at: h
ttp:
//w
ww
.eco
syst
emm
arke
tpla
ce.c
om/p
ages
/dyn
amic
/art
icle
.pag
e.ph
p?pa
ge_i
d=75
61&
sect
ion=
hom
e *
Alp
ine
Chee
se C
ompa
ny/ S
ugar
Cre
ek; B
ear C
reek
; Cha
tfiel
d re
serv
oir t
radi
ng p
rogr
amm
e: C
lean
Wat
er S
ervi
ces/
Tua
latin
Riv
er: L
ong
Isla
nd S
ound
Nitr
ogen
Cre
dit E
xcha
nge
prog
ram
; Gre
at M
iam
i Ri
ver W
ater
shed
trad
ing
pilo
t; M
inne
sota
rive
r bas
in tr
adin
g pr
ogra
m; N
euse
Riv
er b
asin
tota
l nitr
ogen
trad
ing
prog
ram
; Pen
nsyl
vani
a W
ater
Qua
lity
trad
ing
prog
ram
; Red
Ced
ar R
iver
Nut
rient
trad
ing
pilo
t pro
gram
; Sou
ther
n M
inne
sota
Bee
t Sug
ar C
oope
rativ
e pr
ogra
m.
8W
WF
web
pag
es, A
75Annex
An
ne
x 3
: E
xce
rpt
fro
m d
raft
Act
ion
Pla
n o
n “
Fo
rest
s a
nd
a G
ree
n E
con
om
y”
on
“V
alu
ati
on
of
an
d P
ay
me
nts
fo
r
Fo
rest
-
rela
ted
Eco
syst
em
Se
rvic
es”
22
4Va
luat
ion
of a
nd
paym
ent
for f
ores
t ec
osys
tem
se
rvic
es
To id
entif
y an
d va
lue
fore
st fu
nctio
ns
and
to e
stab
lish
PES
tran
sact
ions
,
enco
urag
ing
sust
aina
ble
prod
uctio
n an
d co
nsum
ptio
n pa
tter
ns.
Revi
ew a
nd d
evel
op a
ppro
ache
s to
val
uatio
n of
and
pay
men
t for
diff
eren
t for
est
ecos
yste
m s
ervi
ces,
in th
e U
NEC
E re
gion
, inv
olvi
ng re
sear
ch a
nd p
olic
y bo
dies
.
4.1
Valu
atio
n of
fore
st
ecos
yste
m
serv
ices
To s
uppo
rt th
e as
sign
ing
of
econ
omic
val
ue to
no
n-m
arke
ted
fore
st
good
s an
d se
rvic
es
and
to e
nhan
ce
the
unde
rsta
ndin
g an
d re
cogn
ition
of
the
publ
ic g
oods
ge
nera
ted
by fo
rest
s.
Estim
ate
fore
st e
cosy
stem
val
ues
at th
e na
tiona
l and
regi
onal
leve
ls.
Enco
urag
e re
sear
ch li
nked
to p
olic
y ob
ject
ives
on
the
valu
atio
n fo
r eco
syst
em
serv
ices
, and
pos
sibl
e so
urce
s of
fina
ncin
g fo
r eco
syst
em s
ervi
ces.
Und
erta
ke a
com
paris
on o
f the
val
ue
of m
arke
ted
and
non-
mar
kete
d go
ods
and
serv
ices
of t
he fo
rest
, and
re
com
men
datio
ns a
s to
how
aca
dem
ic
valu
atio
n co
uld
be tr
ansf
orm
ed in
to
paym
ent s
yste
ms.
Org
aniz
e a
polic
y fo
rum
on
emer
ging
di
lem
mas
for f
ores
t man
ager
s an
d po
licy
mak
ers,
focu
sing
on
iden
tifyi
ng c
ritic
al
trad
e-off
s be
twee
n fo
rest
func
tions
.
Und
erta
ke n
atio
nal r
evie
w o
f for
est
ecos
yste
m s
ervi
ces
and
asse
ss th
eir
valu
es u
sing
, as
appr
opria
te, t
he re
sults
of
exis
ting
valu
atio
n st
udie
s (v
alue
tran
sfer
) an
d po
ssib
ly fr
om o
ther
sec
tors
.
Enco
urag
e th
e pa
rtic
ipat
ion
of re
sear
cher
s,
fore
st m
anag
ers
and
cons
umer
s of
fore
st
ecos
yste
m s
ervi
ces
in th
e re
view
and
as
sess
men
t of v
alua
tion
met
hods
.
Und
erta
ke a
nd fu
nd re
sear
ch p
roje
cts
to q
uant
ify a
nd v
alue
(pre
fera
bly
usin
g in
tern
atio
nally
com
patib
le m
etho
ds) a
ll fo
rest
eco
syst
em s
ervi
ces.
Dev
elop
mec
hani
sms
for i
ncor
pora
ting
the
resu
lts o
f for
est e
cosy
stem
val
uatio
n in
to
natio
nal a
ccou
ntin
g fr
amew
orks
.
The Value of Forests76
Org
aniz
e a
polic
y fo
rum
, bas
ed o
n su
rvey
and
ana
lysi
s, le
adin
g to
con
cret
e re
com
men
datio
ns o
n th
e va
luat
ion
of th
e pu
blic
goo
ds p
rovi
ded
by fo
rest
s su
ch a
s hu
man
hea
lth a
nd w
ell-b
eing
.
Coo
pera
te w
ith o
ther
com
mun
ities
su
ch a
s he
alth
, bio
dive
rsity
, clim
ate
chan
ge, e
nerg
y, a
gric
ultu
re to
exc
hang
e kn
owle
dge
on v
alua
tion
met
hodo
logi
es.
Esta
blis
h an
d m
aint
ain
onlin
e pl
atfo
rms
whe
re re
sear
ch in
stitu
tions
cou
ld v
alid
ate
and
exch
ange
rese
arch
resu
lts o
n th
e va
lue
of fo
rest
s an
d fo
rest
pro
duct
s.
Prom
ote
disc
losu
re o
f val
ues
of e
cosy
stem
se
rvic
es a
t the
cor
pora
te le
vel.
4.2
Paym
ent
for f
ores
t ec
osys
tem
se
rvic
es:
mov
ing
from
th
eory
to
prac
tice
To p
rom
ote
best
pr
actic
e to
dev
elop
an
d im
plem
ent P
ES to
en
sure
the
cont
inue
d pr
ovis
ion
of fo
rest
ec
osys
tem
ser
vice
s.
Revi
ew a
nd c
ompi
le e
xper
ienc
e on
pa
ymen
t for
fore
st e
cosy
stem
ser
vice
s, an
d m
onito
r pro
gres
s , t
akin
g in
to a
ccou
nt
exis
ting
mat
eria
l.
Revi
ew a
nd a
naly
se re
leva
nt in
form
atio
n in
Sta
te o
f Eur
ope’
s Fo
rest
s.
Shar
e ex
perie
nces
on
the
diffe
rent
en
ablin
g co
nditi
ons
amon
gst c
ount
ries,
incl
udin
g on
ow
ners
hip
patt
erns
and
th
eir i
mpl
icat
ions
for P
ES d
esig
n an
d im
plem
enta
tion.
Iden
tify
oppo
rtun
ities
for p
aym
ents
for
ecos
yste
m s
ervi
ces.
Revi
ew e
xper
ienc
e an
d in
corp
orat
e in
to e
xist
ing
stra
tegi
es, a
s ap
prop
riate
. D
isse
min
ate
info
rmat
ion
on P
ES c
ase
stud
ies
and
build
cap
acity
for P
ES
deve
lopm
ent a
nd im
plem
enta
tion.
Enha
nce
polic
ies
and
inst
rum
ents
for
sett
ing
the
fram
ewor
k fo
r PES
.
Iden
tify
pote
ntia
l fun
ding
opt
ions
.
Prom
ote
part
ners
hips
bet
wee
n fo
rest
ow
ners
and
oth
er a
ctor
s/st
akeh
olde
rs,
for i
nsta
nce
to d
evel
op fo
rest
tour
ism
/ec
otou
rism
.
77Annex
4.3
Fore
sts
and
hum
an
heal
th
To re
view
way
s in
whi
ch fo
rest
s co
ntrib
ute
to h
uman
he
alth
and
wel
lbei
ng,
and
asce
rtai
n w
heth
er
this
info
rmat
ion
is
prop
erly
inco
rpor
ated
in
to p
olic
ies
and
prac
tices
Org
anis
e a
regi
onal
foru
m o
n fo
rest
s an
d hu
man
hea
lth to
revi
ew th
e si
tuat
ion,
op
port
uniti
es a
nd c
halle
nges
, and
mak
e re
com
men
datio
ns fo
r fut
ure
wor
k, a
t th
e in
tern
atio
nal a
nd n
atio
nal l
evel
. Thi
s w
ould
con
stitu
te a
reso
urce
for h
ealth
and
pl
anni
ng a
utho
ritie
s et
c.
Stud
y on
wel
lbei
ng in
woo
den
build
ings
vs
. bui
ldin
gs w
ith o
ther
str
uctu
res.
(to
be d
evel
oped
, not
ably
in th
e lig
ht o
f th
e re
gion
al fo
rum
on
fore
sts
and
hum
an
heal
th)
22Th
e Ac
tion
Plan
has
bee
n de
velo
ped,
follo
win
g st
akeh
olde
r inp
ut b
y th
e U
NEC
E/FA
O s
ecre
taria
t, an
d re
view
ed w
ith p
artic
ipan
ts a
t the
Sta
keho
lder
mee
ting
on fo
rest
s an
d th
e gr
een
econ
omy,
10-
11
May
201
1. It
will
be
pres
ente
d at
the
join
t ses
sion
of t
he U
NEC
E Ti
mbe
r Com
mitt
ee a
nd F
AO E
urop
ean
Fore
stry
Com
mis
sion
in A
ntal
ya, T
urke
y, 1
0-14
Oct
ober
201
1. T
he fi
naliz
ed A
ctio
n Pl
an w
ill s
erve
as
a re
gion
al a
nd s
ecto
ral e
xam
ple
to b
e pr
esen
ted
at th
e Ri
o+20
sum
mit
on s
usta
inab
le d
evel
opm
ent i
n Ri
o de
Jane
iro, B
razi
l, Ju
ne 2
012.
79UNECE/FAO Publications
UNECE/FAO PUBLICATIONS
Geneva Timber and Forest Study Papers
The Value of Forests: Payments for Ecosystem Services in a GreenEconomy ECE/TIM/SP/34
Forest Products Annual Market Review 2012-2013 ECE/TIM/SP/33
The Lviv Forum on Forests in a Green Economy ECE/TIM/SP/32
Forests and Economic Development: A Driver for the Green Economyin the ECE Region ECE/TIM/SP/31
Forest Products Annual Market Review 2011-2012 ECE/TIM/SP/30
The North American Forest Sector Outlook Study 2006-2030 ECE/TIM/SP/29
European Forest Sector Outlook Study 2010-2030 ECE/TIM/SP/28
Forest Products Annual Market Review 2010-2011 ECE/TIM/SP/27
Private Forest Ownership in Europe ECE/TIM/SP/26
Forest Products Annual Market Review 2009-2010 ECE/TIM/SP/25
Forest Products Annual Market Review 2008-2009 ECE/TIM/SP/24
Forest Products Annual Market Review 2007-2008 ECE/TIM/SP/23
Forest Products Annual Market Review 2006-2007 ECE/TIM/SP/22
Forest Products Annual Market Review, 2005-2006 ECE/TIM/SP/21
European Forest Sector Outlook Study: 1960 – 2000 – 2020,Main Report ECE/TIM/SP/20
Forest policies and institutions of Europe, 1998-2000 ECE/TIM/SP/19
Forest and Forest Products Country Profile: Russian Federation ECE/TIM/SP/18
(Country profiles also exist on Albania, Armenia, Belarus, Bulgaria,former Czech and Slovak Federal Republic, Estonia, Georgia, Hungary,Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Republic of Moldova, Slovenia and Ukraine)Forest resources of Europe, CIS, North America, Australia, Japan andNew Zealand ECE/TIM/SP/17
The Value of Forests80
The above series of sales publications and subscriptions are available from the United
Nations publications office:
Sales and Marketing Section, Room DC2-853
United Nations2 United Nations PlazaNew York, N.Y. 10017United States, of America
Fax: + 1 212 963 3489E-mail: [email protected] site: https://unp.un.org
Fotalia, 2014
81UNECE/FAO Publications
Geneva Timber and Forest Discussion Papers
Swedish Forest Sector Outlook Study ECE/TIM/DP/58
The Importance of China’s Forest Products Markets to the UNECERegion ECE/TIM/DP/57
Good Practice Guidance on Sustainable Mobilisation of Wood:Proceedings from the Grenoble Workshop *ECE/TIM/DP/56
Harvested Wood Products in the Context of Climate Change Policies:Workshop Proceedings - 2008 *ECE/TIM/DP/55
The Forest Sector in the Green Economy ECE/TIM/DP/54
National Wood Resources Balances: Workshop Proceedings *ECE/TIM/DP/53
Potential Wood Supply in Europe *ECE/TIM/DP/52
Wood Availability and Demand in Europe *ECE/TIM/DP/51
Forest Products Conversion Factors for the UNECE Region ECE/TIM/DP/49
Mobilizing Wood Resources: Can Europe’s Forests Satisfy theIncreasing Demand for Raw Material and Energy Under SustainableForest Management? Workshop Proceedings. January 2007 *ECE/TIM/DP/48
European Forest Sector Outlook Study: Trends 2000-2005Compared to the EFSOS Scenarios ECE/TIM/DP/47
Forest and Forest Products Country Profile: Tajikistan *ECE/TIM/DP/46
Forest and Forest Products Country Profile: Uzbekistan ECE/TIM/DP/45
Forest Certification – Do Governments Have a Role? ECE/TIM/DP/44
International Forest Sector Institutions and Policy Instrumentsfor Europe: A Source Book ECE/TIM/DP/43
Forests, Wood and Energy: Policy Interactions ECE/TIM/DP/42
Outlook for the Development of European Forest Resources ECE/TIM/DP/41
Forest and Forest Products Country Profile: Serbia and Montenegro ECE/TIM/DP/40
Forest Certification Update for the UNECE Region, 2003 ECE/TIM/DP/39
Forest and Forest Products Country Profile: Republic of Bulgaria ECE/TIM/DP/38
The Value of Forests82
Forest Legislation in Europe: How 23 Countries Approach theObligation to Reforest, Public Access and Use of Non-Wood Forest Products ECE/TIM/DP/37
Value-Added Wood Products Markets, 2001-2003 ECE/TIM/DP/36
Trends in the Tropical Timber Trade, 2002-2003 ECE/TIM/DP/35
Biological Diversity, Tree Species Composition and EnvironmentalProtection in the Regional FRA-2000 ECE/TIM/DP/33
Forestry and Forest Products Country Profile: Ukraine ECE/TIM/DP/32
The Development of European Forest Resources, 1950 To 2000:a Better Information Base ECE/TIM/DP/31
Modelling and Projections of Forest Products Demand, Supplyand Trade in Europe ECE/TIM/DP/30
Employment Trends and Prospects in the European Forest Sector ECE/TIM/DP/29
Forestry Cooperation with Countries in Transition ECE/TIM/DP/28
Russian Federation Forest Sector Outlook Study ECE/TIM/DP/27
Forest and Forest Products Country Profile: Georgia ECE/TIM/DP/26
Forest Certification Update for the UNECE Region, summer 2002 ECE/TIM/DP/25
Forecasts of Economic Growth in OECD and Central andEastern European Countries for the Period 2000-2040 ECE/TIM/DP/24
Forest Certification update for the UNECE Region, summer 2001 ECE/TIM/DP/23
Structural, Compositional and Functional Aspects of ForestBiodiversity in Europe ECE/TIM/DP/22
Markets for Secondary Processed Wood Products, 1990-2000 ECE/TIM/DP/21
Forest Certification Update for the UNECE Region, summer 2000 ECE/TIM/DP/20
Trade and Environment Issues in the Forest and Forest ProductsSector ECE/TIM/DP/19
Multiple Use Forestry ECE/TIM/DP/18
Forest Certification Update for the UNECE Region, summer 1999 ECE/TIM/DP/17
A summary of “The competitive climate for wood productsand paper packaging: the factors causing substitution withemphasis on environmental promotions” ECE/TIM/DP/16
Recycling, Energy and Market Interactions ECE/TIM/DP/15
83UNECE/FAO Publications
The Status of Forest Certification in the UNECE Region ECE/TIM/DP/14
The Role of Women on Forest Properties in Haute-Savoie (France):Initial research ECE/TIM/DP/13
Interim Report on the Implementation of Resolution H3 ofthe Helsinki Ministerial Conference on the Protection of Forestsin Europe (results of the second enquiry) ECE/TIM/DP/12
Manual on Acute Forest Damage ECE/TIM/DP/7
* Web downloads only.
The above publications are available free of charge from:
UNECE/FAO Forestry and Timber SectionUnited Nations Economic Commission for EuropePalais des NationsCH-1211 Geneva 10, Switzerland
Fax: +41 22 917 0041E-mail: [email protected]
Downloads are available from: www.unece.org/forests